Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.09.11

2025:CGHC:44105 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 153 of 2025

1 - Rajeshwari Devi Agrawal W/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G.

2 - Mukesh Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G.

3 - Rajendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G.

4 - Jitendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G.

... Applicants versus

1 - Saroj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bhupendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Road No. 3, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G.

2 - Dharmendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G.

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

29.08.2025

1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/defendants assailing the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the 10th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Durg (C.G.), whereby, in Civil Suit No. A/234 of 2024, their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been dismissed. The trial Court has held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and can only be determined during the course of trial.

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

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and the impugned order dated order dated 25/01/2025 ANNEXURE - A/1 passed in the civil suit Class A/234/2024 pending before the learned Court below (4th Civil Judge, Junior Grade, Durg, C.G.). may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice.”

3. The case as projected by the applicants/defendants is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract, alleging that an oral agreement dated 10.01.1989 was entered into between the parties. It is pleaded that, pursuant to the said oral agreement, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid as advance, and subsequently, on various dates, further payments were made in accordance with the terms of the agreement, aggregating to Rs.1,10,000/-. It is further averred that, although there was no written agreement to sell executed, the understanding was in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 65/02, area 0.80 hectares, situated at Village Kohka, P.H. No.14, District Durg (C.G.). The plaintiff has alleged that whenever he requested the defendants to execute the sale deed after payment of the entire consideration amount, the defendants never denied the agreement; on the contrary, they assured him that they would execute the sale deed in his favour. On 10.10.2017, an application for mutation was moved by late Motilal Agrawal, wherein it was categorically stated that the land in question had already been sold by their father, though the registered sale deed could not be executed. Subsequently, on 29.07.2024, the plaintiff came to know that the land for which the agreement was entered and the entire consideration was paid, had been demarcated at the instance of some other person. The plaintiff came to know about such demarcation as he owns the adjacent land and a notice regarding demarcation was also served upon him. On the b