[2026:RJ-JP:9613]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 98/2026 Ramesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Ranthambor Marriage Garden Hammir Circle, Bajriya Sawai Madhoupr.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Alanpur Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur At Present Resident Of F-1, R 14/201 Shree Ram Residency Kamla Nehru Nagar Ajmer Road Jaipur.

2. Sub Registrar, Sawai Madhopur.

3. Land Holder, Tehsildar Sawai Madhopur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Sh. Brij Bhushan Ojha For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

06/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant/petitioner by assailing the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur, in Civil Suit No. 17/2025 titled as Omprakash Vs. Rameshchand & Ors. whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 22.07.1994 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent in the year 2025. The aforesaid suit is clearly barred by provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, more particularly Articles 56, 57, and 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He further submits that, as per the agreement dated 22.07.1994, the plaintiff was supposed to get the sale deed registered, but he did not show any readiness and willingness to do the same; therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff was never willing to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, the present suit is barred by Section

16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. Heard

4. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce Order

7 Rule 11 CPC which reads as under:-

"Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] "

5. From perusal of record of the case, it is evident that the suit for specific performance of contract dated 22.07.1994 was filed on 05.02.2025 in the said suit, the plaintiff has averred that on 03.02.2025 the present petitioner has denied the execution of sale deed, therefore, the suit has been filed.

6. It would be apt at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which is reproduced as under:-

7. Thus, it is well settled that Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, governs suits seeking specific performance of a contract and prescribes a period of limitation of three year