The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a civil suit involving mixed questions of law and fact, such as the determination of the period of limitation, breach of terms and conditions, and seeking of relief for specific performance, requires evidence and adjudication and cannot be decided summarily.

JUDGMENT :

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. The petitioners/defendants Manjit Singh and others have filed present civil revision for quashing of order dated 11.01.2023, Annexure P-1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No. 54/2021 titled as Amritpal Singh and Another vs. Ranjit Singh and Others for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the entire advance money of Rs.1.50 crore which was received by them from the plaintiffs on the basis of agreement dated 21.03.2008 along with compensation and interest as detailed therein, in which their application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was declined by passing the impugned order against the settled law.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are owners of land in dispute in two villages namely village Bonkar Dogran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and village Mujara Khurd, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. At one point of time, one agreement to sell dated 21.03.2008 was executed by Zorawar Singh for himself and on behalf of others in favour of Manjit Kaur, respondent No. 2 wife of respondent No. 1, regarding 23 Kanals 11 Marlas of land in village Mujara Khurd and the same was later-on cancelled/rescinded as purchaser was not able to pay balance sale consideration upto the time fixed i.e. 15.12.2008 due to non-availability of funds. Even though the sellers were ready and willing to perform their part of agreement to sell. The period of limitation of 3 years has expired on 15.12.2011 to claim specific performance of agreement or to recover the amount paid under the agreement. The copy of agreement to sell dated 21.03.2008 is Annexure P-2. Another agreement of sale was also executed on 21.03.2008 regarding sale of 19 Kanals 2 Marlas of land regarding the share of vendor Jorawar Singh and others as detailed in the agreement in favour of Amritpal and Manjit Kaur respondent Nos.1 and 2. The copy of second agreement to sell dated 21.03.2008 is Annexure P-3. In the first agreement, the installment of Rs.1 crore was to be paid on 03.07.2008 and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.7,59,06,250/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.9,59,06,250/- was to be paid on 15.12.2008 which was not paid. Similarly, in the second agreement to sell the entire consideration of Rs.3,91,56,250/- out of sale consideration of Rs.4,41,56,250/- was to be paid on 15.12.2008 by the respondents but the same was not paid. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 have not paid the balance sale consideration, so the petitioners had the apprehension that they would not pay them total consideration as the cut-off date was 15.12.2008. They had sent telegrams dated 12.12.2008 which are Annexure P-4 and P-5. The petitioners also appeared before the Sub Registrar on 15.12.2008 but the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not turn up. Again a legal notice dated 23.12.2008 was issued calling upon the respondents to come with the balance sale consideration on 30.12.2008. The copy of legal notices dated 23.12.2008 are Annexure P-6 and P-7. Again the petitioners appeared before the Sub Registrar on 30.12.2008 but the respondents did not turn up. During this period the land was acquired by National Highway Authority to widen the bye-pass vide notification dated 18.09.2015. The award amount/compensation is yet to be disbursed by the competent authority. The respondents had no right to file objections for the release and disbursement of compensation in favour of the petitioners. The respondents started giving threats to the petitioners and also implicated them in a false criminal case. The respondents were aware that they could not avail the remedy by way of specific performance of agreement or for recovery of the alleged amount paid by them. Therefore, they filed complaint before Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana under Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 506 IPC by alleging that the agreements were executed with mala-fide intention. Thereafter, the present suit for mandatory injunction to return th