ORDER

This first appeal under Section 96, r/w Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the XV District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.A/858/2022, by which application of respondent no. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was allowed and the plaint of the appellant was rejected.

2. In brief the litigation between the parties were that the original plaintiff Smt. Rupali Prashan and defendant no. 1-Amit Abhishek Shrivastava were real sister and brother. There was a previous dispute between the parties regarding disputed house and plot situated at Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. On the previous dispute between both the parties, the parties arrived at a consensus, a compromise decree was passed the then the District Judge in Civil Suit No.1162-A/2011-2012, on 7.8.2015. As per that agreement, half portion of the disputed house was given in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff - Amit Abhishesh Shrivastava and south side 35.6x90 feet to the appellant Rupali Pradhan.

3. After the possession a dipsute regarding pre-emption was raised which was raised in execution of the decree passed in R.C.S. no. 1162-A/2012, (Annexure A-12).

4. In between, the respondent no. 1 - Amit Abhishek Shrivastava transferred his share of the house by registered sale deed to the respondent no.

2. The appellant - plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court seeking the relief of right of pre-emption on the basis that she has pre-emptory right over the disputed property and violating that the property was sold to respondent no. 2, hence, sale deed be declared as illegal, null and void and prayed for relief of injunction against the respondent no.2. 5. The respondent no. 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The trial court on basis of application filed by the respondent no. 2, allowing the application rejected the plaint on the ground of limitation, hence this first appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Limitation Act and trial court has not considered the fact that Hono'ble Hon'ble Apex, Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No (C) No.03 of 2020 has extended the limitation period that were expiring from 15.2.2020 till 28.2.2022 and only on that basis dismissed the suit but has misread plaint averments.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that they have duly served the notice to plaintiff before selling the disputed property to respondent no. 2 and he has also applied before the executing court and the plaintiff appeared before the executing court and denied their offer to purchase the house and after that he has sold his share of his house to respondent no.2. Thus, as per law, the plaintiff has denied to purchase the disputed land, hence, he has sold the house to the respondent no.2. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that if the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No (C) No.03 of 2020 is also taken into consideration, the suit was time barred as the plaintiff herself has stated in her plaint that in the year 2021 after vacation, the respondent started demolishing the house and in April 2022 the house was demolished. She thought that the respondent no. 1 himself is reconstructing his house, but when he enquired the matter from Deepak Babbar then he came to know that the disputed house was sold to respondent no.2 and the learnd counsel on that basis submitted that in May -June 2021, she came to know that the house has been sold and as per the order passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition No (C) No.03 of 2020 if the limitation period is already extinguished, the plaintiff should have filed the suit within 90 days from 1.3.2022 and if also basing that the sale deed was executed and on that basis if she came to know it was executed in May 2021, one year period if extinguished in May 2022 and that rem