IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 1293 of 2025 MAHESH Versus SMT. SUNITA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Nagar - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER

1. This civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the CPC by the applicant against the impugned order dated 1.09.2025 whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the applicant/defendant before the learned trial Court has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff / respondent has filed a civil suit RCS A/08/2025 before the Civil Judge, Class I, Rajpur, District Barwani, for specific performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of sale deed dated 23.5.2016. In that suit petitioner / defendant has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit is barred by limitation specifically stating that in the agreement itself it was mentioned that on the basis of agreement the sale deed will be executed within a period of six months, however that the same has not complied with and, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation, but the application was opposed by the plaintiff and by the impugned order the application has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has committed an error in not properly interpreting the clause in the agreement dated 23.5.2016 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the specific performance will take place within a period of six months from the date of execution of agreement. Relying upon the aforesaid clause learned counsel submits that plaint should have been rejected. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment ITC Limited V/s. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors. reported as (1998) 2 SCC 70, Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Union of India & Anr., reported as (2011) 9 SCC 126, Manjula Chordiya & Anr. V/s. Bharat Chordiya & Anr. reported as [2024(3) MPLJ 132, Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. V/s. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5822 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (c) No.13566 of 2021), Fatbhji & Co. & Anr. V/s. L.M. Nagpal & Ors. reported as (2015) 8 SCC 390, Usha Devi & Ors. V/s. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors. 2024 SCC online SC 1915, K.S. Vidyanadam & Ors. V/s. Vairavan reported as (1997) 3 SCC 1, Saleem Bhai & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported as 2003 (1) SCC 557 and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy V/s. Syed Jalal reported as (2017) 13 SCC 174.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record along with the impugned order (Annexure P/1).

5. To resolve the controversy involved in this case relevant Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is relevant which is reproduced as under :-

54. For Specific The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such Three performance of a date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that years contract performance is refused

6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that in case the limitation will start where the date is fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused. Agreement to sell dated 23.5.2016 (Annexure A/3) whereby defendant herein has executed agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff in regard to his agriculture land Survey No.24/3 Rakba 2.678 hectare situated at Village Choti Khargone Patwari Halka No.17 Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani. Perusal of this agreement reveals that it was assured by the applicant that he will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) within a period of six month from the date of execution of agreement to sell, ie., 23.5.2016, but in the aforesaid stipulated time of six months sale deed was not executed in favour of the plaintiff. Perusal of allegations as contained in plaint (Annexure A/2) reveal that when he opposed respondent/plaintiff for getting execution of sale deed, he told him that d