Digitally signed by 2026:CGHC:2350 YOGESH YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.01.14

18:57:35 NAFR +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 279 of 2025

1 - Sourabh Bodani S/o Late Ramesh H. Bodani Aged About 28 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondiya, District Gondiya (Maharastra)

2 - Kapil Bodani S/o Late Ramesh H. Bodani Aged About 26 Years General Power of Attorney Holder Of The Applicant No. 1, 3 to 5, R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondiya, District Gondiya (Maharastra)

3 - Smt. Shalini Bodani D/o Late Ramesh H. Bodani Aged About 30 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondiya, District Gondiya (Maharastra)

4 - Smt. Reshma Bodani D/o Late Ramesh H. Bodani Aged About 35 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondiya, District Gondiya (Maharastra)

5 - Smt. Seema Bodani W/o Late Ramesh H. Bodani Aged About 30 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondiya, District Gondiya (Maharastra)

... Applicant versus

1 - Kanhaiyalal Gidwani S/o Late Bhagwandas Gidwani Aged About 59 Years R/o Behind Shiv Talkies, V I P Colony, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Tahsildar Bilaslpur, Tahsil Office, District- Bilaspur, C.G.

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

14.01.2026

1. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and set aside the impugned order dated 08/10/2025 (ANNEXURE A/1) and further be pleased to dismiss the suit filed by plaintiff by allowing the application filed under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc, in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff has instituted a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of an alleged oral agreement dated 10.11.2009 and a subsequent written agreement to sell dated 15.04.2010, purportedly executed by the applicants’/defendants’ father/husband in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 235/21 and 235/22 situated at Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). It is pleaded that a sum of ₹51,000/- was paid as earnest money and the remaining amount of ₹12,00,000/- was allegedly paid in cash at the time of execution of the written agreement, whereafter possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff. The executant is stated to have expired on 06.11.2018. After a long and unexplained delay, respondent No.1/plaintiff issued a legal notice to the applicants/defendants on 03.05.2025 seeking execution of the sale deed and thereafter filed the present suit on 09.05.2025, i.e. more than fifteen years after the alleged agreement dated

15.04.2010.

3. The applicants/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that no agreement for sale was ever executed by their father/husband; that the alleged agreement is forged and fabricated; and that, in any case, the suit is ex facie barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years for filing a suit for specific performance from the date fixed for performance or, in the absence thereof, from the date when performance is refused. Despite the plaint itself disclosing the dates of the alleged agreement and the inordinate delay of over fifteen years, the learned Trial Court, by order dated 08.10.2025, rejected the application holding that the objections raised involved mixed questions of fact and law. Hence, the present Civil Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is per se illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is contended that while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned T