IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

CIVIL REVISION No. 917 of 2025

SMT MEERA TOMAR

Versus

ASHISH PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for applicant.

Shri Gaurav Mishra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Shri Imran Khan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

Reserved on : 19/12/2025 Pronounced on : 13/01/2026

ORDER

This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against the

order dated 14/8/2025 passed by XXIII District Judge, Gwalior in RCSA No. 202/2023, by which the application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11,

CPC, has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of House No.759/54 situated on Plot No.52-C, Jawahar Colony, Kampu, Lashkar,

District Gwalior. The aforesaid property was inherited by defendant No.1/applicant from her father-in-law after his death, who died on 18/11/1994. Defendant No.1/applicant has also lost her husband on 26/9/2012 and name of defendant No.1/applicant was mutated in the revenue records. It is the case of plaintiffs that on 7/4/2017, defendant No.1/applicant entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property for a consideration amount of Rs.1 crore and by way of advance, she had also received Rs. 10 lacs by two cheques of Rs.5 lacs each. The sale deed was to be executed within a period of 5 months from the date of agreement. However, by another agreement dated 26/8/2017, the period for execution of sale deed was extended by 1 year till 5/9/2019. However, on one pretext or the other, the sale deed was not executed and, accordingly, suit was filed for specific performance of contract on 20/2/2023. The applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC by alleging that even if the plaint averments are accepted, then it is clear that the suit is barred by time. However, by the impugned order, application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC has been dismissed.

3. Challenging the impugned order, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that agreement to sell was executed on 7/4/2017 and sale deed was to be executed by 6/9/2017. However, by another agreement dated 26/8/2017, time for execution of sale deed was extended upto 5/9/2019. It is submitted that if the period of limitation of 3 years is counted from 5/9/2019, then it is clear that the period of 3 years had expired on 4/9/2022, whereas the suit was filed on 20/2/2023. It is submitted that it is true that in the light of COVID-19 pandemic, Supreme Court had relaxed the period of limitation, but by judgment dated 10/1/2022 passed by Supreme Court in the case of In Re:

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020), the relaxation in period of limitation was recalled and, therefore, the suit should have been filed within the period as prescribed in para 5 of the aforesaid judgment. However, since the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation, therefore, the trial Court has committed material illegality in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

4. Per contra the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for applicant. It is submitted that since the suit was filed within the period of limitation, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court on 10/1/2022 in the case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra), the trial Court did not commit any mistake.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra) has held as under:-

5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 a