ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

06.12.2022 in I.A.No.124 of 2022 in O.S.No.325 of 2021 passed by the learned X-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.124 of 2022 in O.S.No.325 of 2021, before the trial Court against the respondent, under Order VII rule 11 R/w.151 of C.P.C, for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner therein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that plaint is barred by limitation and it is not maintainable for want of cause of action. He relied upon the provisions of Sections 31 to 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and also on Sections 54 & 55(4) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but they were not referred by the trial Court. He further referred Sections 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872, but they were also ignored and overlooked by the trial Court. He also stated he had filed landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but they were not considered. He further stated that in several Supreme Court Judgments, it was held that clever drafting should not be allowed to overcome the defects in the suit and it amounts to abuse of process of law. The suit has to be filed within three years for cancellation of the sale deed as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but respondent took shelter of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in suo motu W.P.No.3 of 2020, exempting limitation upto 28.02.2022, due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. It was further contended that if the consideration was not paid under the registered sale deed, vendor has to file a suit for recovery of money, but not for cancellation of sale deed. The plaint itself is defective and it is liable to be rejected. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

4. In spite of service of notice, respondent did not turn up. Hence, heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and reserved for Orders on 20.06.2024.

5. Initially, respondent herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.325 of 2021, for cancellation of the sale deed dated

19.06.2017 vide document No.2235 of 2017, stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of 1/4th undivided share in the property bearing Municipal No.5-3-292/1, situated at Goshamahal, Kattalmandi, Hyderabad, admeasuring 45.75 Sq.yrds i.e., suit schedule property and petitioner was one of the tenant. He approached the respondent and requested him to sell the suit schedule property and the respondent agreed to sell the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.94,00,000/-, but to avoid registration charges, they entered into agreement only for Rs.25,00,000/-. Petitioner had paid the said amount by way of Demand Draft and executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.2235 of 2017, dated 19.06.2017. The petitioner promised to pay Rs.69,00,000/-, within a short period after execution of the sale deed, but he failed to do so. Later, when he insisted the petitioner to pay the amount, he issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.34,50,000/- each, but they were dishonored for the reason “stop payment”. Since two years from the date of filing the suit, petitioner was enjoying the property as owner without paying balance sale consideration, as such he was constrained to file C.C.No.421 and 422 of 2021, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He also stated that his sister-in-law filed a suit in O.S.No.831 of 2021, for eviction and cancellation of the document regarding the suit schedule property, against him and the petitioner herein. As the petitioner requested him not to appear before the Court and promised to pay the balance sale consideration, he did not contest the suit, but later petitioner did not comply his promise. Therefore,