The rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is inappropriate when a cause of action is present, and limitation is a factual matter requiring trial.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.07.2024 in I.A.No. 912 of 2023 in O.S.No. 31 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad.

2. Petitioners herein are Defendants 1 and 2, the 1st respondent is plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 3rd defendant in the suit. Parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit against Defendants 1 and 2 seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.8, Acs.9.15 guntas in Survey No.9 and Ac.1.09 guntas in Survey No.10, total admeasuring Acs.11.04 guntas situated at Gatepally Village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District duly receiving balance consideration of Rs.9 lacs and in the event, the Court finds that sale consideration amount is not paid by defendants 1 and 2 to the 3rd defendant, they be directed to pay the amount collected from plaintiff on behalf of the 3^rd defendant. In the said suit, Defendants 1 and 2 had taken out the subject Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and the relief prayed in the suit is barred by limitation.

4. According to Defendants 1 and 2, plaintiff pleaded in the suit that the 1^st defendant is the owner and possessor of Acs.12.20 guntas in Survey No.6, Acs.11.13 guntas in Survey No. 7, Ac.1.00 in Survey No.10, total Acs.25.11 guntas; the 2nd defendant in respect of Acs.6.32 guntas in Survey No.5 situated at Burugugada Village, Dharur Mandal and that he obtained agreements on 08.09.2016 from them independently to purchase their respective lands. Plaintiff further pleaded that the 3rd defendant is the owner and possessor of subject land and that he obtained agreement of sale on 27.09.2016 to purchase the said land but the latter refused to register the sale deed though plaintiff paid Rs.4.91 crores and received by the 1^st defendant on behalf of Defendants 1 to 3 and left balance amount of Rs.9 lacs and that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the same.

It is the case of defendants 1 and 2 that in view of the admitted case of plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 had already transferred their lands which were the subject matter of agreements dated 08.09.2016 obtained from them, there is no obligation on their part to enforce the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2016, as such, plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against them. The contention of plaintiff that he never negotiated with the 3^rd respondent and it is the 1^st defendant, who was instrumental in getting the agreement of sale executed by the former and that the 1st defendant received Rs.4.91 crores for and on behalf of Defendants 1 and 2 and that the 3^rd defendant failed to perform his part of contract on the ill- advice of the 1^st defendant is contrary to the documents filed by plaintiff, who came up with such allegations in order to create illusory and sham cause of action to bring the suit against Defendants 1 and 2. It is further averred that the suit was filed after lapse of seven years of the agreement, hence, is barred by limitation.

5. Plaintiff filed the counter-affidavit in the Application opposing the aforesaid claim of Defendants 1 and 2, contending that the subject I.A. is only to harass and to drag the proceedings of the suit. It is settled law that for adjudication of Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC., the averments made in the plaint only and in this case, it does not disclose that plaint is barred under law nor that suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action. It is specifically pleaded with regard to cause of action, which reads as under:

“ The above facts constitute the cause of action which accrued to the plaintiff on 08.09. 2016 when the defendants had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of Acres 43-07 Guntas and on vario