Judgment

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants impugning the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to disclose the name of collaborators/vendee and further the present market price fixed/to be fixed of the 14 shops in question (in ratio of entire building) situated at basement of Seema Cinema, Panipat, and also disclose all the terms and conditions settled/to be settled by the defendants with the said collaborators/vendee in compliance to agreement dated 17.07.1997, 11.08.2001, 04.02.2006, 12.10.2006 and 19.02.2007, respectively, and further to direct the defendants to release the price of said 14 shops situated at the basement of Seema Cinema, Panipat, without any further delay and settle the matter by complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 19.02.2007 in view of the terms and conditions settled in the earlier agreement dated 17.07.1997 and further direction to the defendants to release the 40% amount to the plaintiffs of the entire sale consideration of the entire building situated near Hali Park Seema Theatre, Panipat, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling/alienating the disputed 14 shops till payment to be made in 40% ratio of the entire building. Defendants filed their written statement. They also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which has been dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, vide impugned order dated 21.05.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the claim raised in the suit was time-barred, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed as the last agreement is dated 19.02.2007 whereby time period was extended by one year i.e. upto 19.02.2008 and since the suit was filed on 06.05.2011, therefore, the same was barred by limitation as having been filed beyond the period of three years from 19.02.2008. He further submitted that prior to 19.02.2007 there were two agreements executed on 04.02.2006, which was for a period of three months and 12.10.2006, which was again valid for a period of three months and, therefore, since in the last preceding 12 months there were three agreements, nothing prevented the parties from executing another agreement. He further submitted that present case is of clever drafting on the part of the plaintiffs to bring the time barred suit within the ambit of limitation and the same would not extend the period of limitation and consequently, the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is liable to be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives and others, (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366; Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by LRs , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 372 ; N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and others v. Mariyamma (dead) by Proposed LRs and others, 2005(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 414; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others , (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 137; T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another , 1977 (4) Supreme Court Cases 467; Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal , (2017) 13 Supreme Cour