ORDER

This Civil Revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-

I, Jaora, District Ratlam, Indore in C.S.No.2B/2018 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant on the ground that he happens to be the son of late Shri Ram Karan Laddha and that Shri Ram Karan Laddha expired on 31.12.2017. It is further submitted that during his life time Shri Ram Karan Laddha executed a will in favour of the present respondent/plaintiff and in this will Shri Ram Karan Laddha said to have mentioned about the execution of some oral agreement between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff. It is further pleaded that petitioner/defendant owns a piece of land in Gram Sujawada and for the purposes of selling the plots of the colony and their development, the petitioner/defendant entered into an oral agreement with Shri Ram Karan Laddha thereby promising him 3% of the remuneration received against the sale of the plots. It is further stated that the petitioner/defendant executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Shri Ram Karan Laddha for sale of plot nos.19, 20 and 25. The power of attorney was executed on 01.01.1993. The sale deeds of these three plots were executed on 18.01.1993,24.10.1994 and 27.03.1997. It is further pleaded that after the death of Shri Ram Karan Laddha, the respondent/plaintiff stands to recover Rs.22,17,360 as 3% commission of the sale of the plots from the petitioner/defendant.

3. The defendant filed written statement and thereafter application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and submitted that the suit is not maintainable because it was filed beyond the period of three years from the date of agreement and also that if three registries executed by the father of the respondent/plaintiff are to be taken into consideration, even then the suit is barred by time.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 has dismissed the application of the petitioner/defendant and stated that if the averments of the plaint are taken into consideration, the period of limitation has not expired.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition on the ground that impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse, contrary to law and facts and circumstances. The trial Court has failed to properly and legally exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law. It appears clearly by perusal of the plaint that the suit is barred by limitation and trial Court committed gross error of law in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, prays for allowing the revision by setting aside the impugned order and consequently the plaint may be rejected and the suit filed by respondent no.1 be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposes the revision petition and prays for its rejection.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126 wherein it has been held as under:-

“30. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the legislature has designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word `first' has been used between the words `sue' and `accrued'. This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed i