2025:BHC-AS:56508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

MJ Jadhav

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 633 OF 2023

Shantaibai Mahadeo Bhagwat … Applicant

Vs.

Manohar Sopan Jachak (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. … Respondents

Smt. Suman Manohar Jachak And Ors.

Mr. Pramod Pawar for the Applicant.

Mr. Pranav Bhoite a/w Bhushan Divekar for the Respondents.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 10th DECEMBER 2025

ORDER:

1. This application is filed by defendant no.1 to challenge the order passed by the trial Court rejecting her application under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC’).

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suit for specific performance was filed in 2018, seeking specific performance of an agreement executed on 22^nd November 1990. He submits that, even according to the plaintiffs, the sale deed could not be executed, although the permission was granted in 1998. He relies upon the order passed on 17^th March 2023 by the trial Court under Order X Rule 2 of CPC recording the preliminary evidence of

Digitally signed by MANGALTAI

MANGALTAI JAYWANT

JAYWANT JADHAV Page no. 1 of 7

JADHAV Date:

2025.12.20

the plaintiff no.4. He submits that in the preliminary evidence recorded by the Court under Order X Rule 2 of CPC, plaintiff no. 4 admitted that the permission of the competent authority was granted in 1998. He therefore submits that the plaintiffs admitted that the permission was granted in 1998 and that the Nazrana payment was not deposited. Accordingly, the cause of action for specific performance arose in 1998. The suit filed in 2017 is therefore barred by limitation.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that the trial Court also rejected an application for rejection of the plaint filed by defendant no.6. However, the same was challenged in this Court by filing a civil revision application, which was withdrawn. He submits that thereafter, the preliminary evidence under Order X Rule 2 was recorded on 17^th March 2023, which clearly demonstrates that the plaintiffs were aware of the permission granted in 1998. He submits that in view of the pleadings in the plaint and the preliminary evidence recorded on the 17^th March 2023, it clearly shows that the suit filed in 2018 for specific performance of an agreement executed in 1990 is barred by the law of limitation. He therefore submits that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs supports the impugned order. He points out that the mere grant of permission and non- payment of the nazrana amount would not be grounds to reject the plaint at the threshold. The cause of action to file the suit for specific performance is the execution of the sale deed by defendant nos.1 to 7 in favour of defendant nos. 8 and 9 during the substance of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff, as it would amount to a refusal to specifically perform the contract in favour of the plaintiffs. He submits that plaintiff no.4’s preliminary evidence records that defendant no. 1 failed to pay the nazrana amount. However, the said admission would not constitute a finding that defendant No. 1 refused to execute the sale deed to specifically perform the contract. Plaintiff no. 4 has stated in his preliminary evidence that he is not aware whether the permission has been cancelled. He thus submits that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint would entitle the plaintiffs to lead evidence to support their contentions that the suit agreement is valid and subsisting, and thus, execution of the sale deed inter se between the defendants would amount to refusal to perform the contract and thus entitle the plaintiffs to seek specific performance. He thus submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

5. I have perused the pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiffs claim right to seek specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 22^nd November 1990. The plaintiffs contend that the p