IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 56 of 2026 AKASH TIWARI AND OTHERS Versus KESHAV SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Amit Mishra - P.L. for the State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

28.07.2025 by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has rejected application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the present petitioner, who are defendants No.7 and 8 before the trial Court.

2. A suit has been filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court on the assertion that on 07.04.2023 an agreement to sale was executed whereby the plaintiff and defendant No.6 entered into agreement to sale with defendants No.1 to 5. There was a clause in the agreement to sale that the land is leasehold land from the State Government and as and when permission would be obtained from the concerned revenue authority to sale the land, then the sale deed of the land shall be executed.

3. It was contended in the plaint that no sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff, but sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants No.7 and 8 by the defendants No.1 to 5 and therefore, the plaintiff has sued for specific performance of agreement and also for cancellation of sale deed in favour of the defendants No.7 and 8 and has valued the suit on both the reliefs.

4. The defendants No.1 to 5 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since the land was held on lease from the State Government, therefore, as per terms of the agreement dated 07.04.2013, sale deed could not be executed unless there was permission of the revenue authority to sale the land and since the permission could not be obtained, hence sale deed was not executed and therefore, no specific performance can be granted to sale the land without any permission of the Revenue Officer. It was further argued that the suit could not be filed by over-valuing it on the basis of agreement to sale, as well as on the basis of the sale deed being executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendants No.7 and 8.

5. Upon considering the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that in the agreement to sale deed dated 07.04.2023 executed with the plaintiff there was clear assertion that the sale deed would be executed only after getting permission from the revenue authority to sale the land, which is held in the lease from the State Government. However, subsequently the permission was obtained from the Collector, District Bhopal on 01.04.2025 and the land was later on sold to the defendants No.7 and 8 on 08.05.2025. The suit was thereafter filed by the plaintiff on 16.06.2025.

6. As subsequently the defendants No.1 to 5 had obtained a permission to sale the land from the revenue authority prior to filing of the suit and they sold the land to defendants No.7 and 8, therefore, it cannot be argued by the defendants No.1 to 5 or by any other defendants that the agreement cannot be performed, because there is no permission of the revenue authority to sale the land. The permission was obtained prior to the suit being filed by the plaintiff and if there was a permission, then the question of agreement not being capable of being performed goes away.

7. So far as the assertion that the suit has been over-valued on the basis of agreement to sale as well as on the basis of the sale deed subsequently executed with the defendants No.7 and 8 is concerned, since the plaintiff has paid court fees and valued on both the reliefs, hence valuing the plaint on the basis of both the reliefs cannot be stated to be over-valuation at all. Therefore, on this ground also the trial Court has rightly refused to reject the plaint.

8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that the agreement to sale was in favour of two persons, but only one has come up to file the suit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the e