ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by 24th Civil Judge Senior Division, Jabalpur, in RCSA no.487/22, whereby petitioner/defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed in the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, has been dismissed.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dtd. 10.09.2021 (Notarized). Undisputedly previously an agreement of sale was executed on 19.11.2018 in between the plaintiff and defendant’s father namely Santokh Singh Chhabra in which cheques of Rs.70,00,000/- were given by the plaintiff but only an amount of Rs.11 lacs was received by father of the defendant and later on, second agreement in respect of same property was executed on 10.09.2021 in between the plaintiff and defendant for consideration of Rs.80 lacs, towards which the defendant had received total amount of Rs.28 lacs which included previous amount of Rs.11 lacs. Because, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to get executed the sale deed within the fixed period i.e. up to 30.11.2021, therefore, the defendant returned entire advance amount of Rs.28 lacs to the plaintiff on 18.04.2022 by depositing it in the bank account of the plaintiff, therefore, there is no cause of action available to the plaintiff for filing the suit for specific performance. He further submits that agreement in question is an unregistered document, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be granted any relief in the suit for specific performance especially in the circumstances where the entire advance consideration amount has been returned to the plaintiff. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Lrs and others (2020) 7 SCC 366;

Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1283; and Rajendra Bajoria and others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others (2022) 12 SCC 641. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the civil revision.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the civil revision. He submits that from the date of agreement dated 10.09.2021, the suit is well within limitation and as against advance amount of Rs.28 lacs, an amount of Rs.13 lacs has been deposited by defendant in the Bank account of the plaintiff, that too without knowledge and instructions of the plaintiff, on the basis of which it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Durga Prasad and another vs. Deep Chand and others AIR 1954 SC 75 and Himmatlal and others vs. M/s. Rajratan Concept and others AIR 2018 MP 197.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In the present case, suit for specific performance has been filed on the basis of agreement of sale dated 10.09.2021 wherein time for execution of sale deed is fixed up to 30.11.2021. Undisputedly, in the present case, suit has been filed on 21.04.2022 which is well within limitation, provided under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. So far as the question of availability of cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance is concerned, the plaintiff in paragraph 10 of the plaint, has pleaded that although an amount of Rs.13 lacs has been deposited by the defendant in the bank account of the plaintiff, but the same has been deposited without any knowledge and instructions of the plaintiff.

7. In view of the aforesaid fact that the plaintiff is not admitting receipt of Rs.28 lacs or Rs.13 lacs willingly, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Even otherwise, at the st