THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4155 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 seeking to set aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, at Kamareddy, in I.A.No.714 of 2023 in O.S.No.6 of 2023.

2) Vide impugned order, the application filed by the revision petitioner-defendant No.1 by invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint in O.S. No.6 of 2023 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for want of limitation, was dismissed by the learned trial Judge.

3) Heard Sri Vijay B.Paropakari, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri Vonjari Raja Shekar Reddy and Ventak Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

4) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that in the instant case there is no continuous cause of action and as such the suit filed by the respondents against the revision petitioner is barred by limitation.

Further, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the impugned application erroneously and the interpretation of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020 by the learned trial Judge is incorrect. Learned counsel has contended that vide order dated 10.01.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted 90 days to be added from 01.03.2022 in respect of those cases where limitation was expired during the period 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. But, in the present case, the Agreement of Sale is dated 16.07.2019 and the suit is filed on 10.05.2023. Hence, the reliance placed by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the impugned application is misplaced. As regards limitation, reliance has been placed on Arvindanam v. T.V. Satyapal Singh1. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents- Plaintiffs has contended that in view of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous

1 AIR 1977 SC 2421

Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020, the entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded while calculating the limitation period. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is well considered and needs no interference of this Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

7) As can be seen from the record, the revision petitioner- defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale dated 16.07.2019 in favour of respondents herein agreeing to sell a portion of open plot (Western side) covered by Survey Nos.68/1 and 68/2, admeasuring 223.51 Sq. Yards, situated at Ward No.1, Block No.5, Siricilla Road, Kamareddy Town and Mandal, Kamareddy District, after taking certain portion of consideration amount and thereafter failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. As such, the respondents-plaintiffs have filed a suit for Specific Performance of agreement of sale dated 16.07.2019 vide O.S. No.6 of 2023 before the trial Court on 10.05.2023. Hence, seeking to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation, the revision petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed the impugned application and the same was dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide impugned order dated 12.12.2024 duly placing reliance on the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020.

8) The contention of the revision petitioner is that only in cases where the limitation period expires between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the relaxation period of 90 days has to be permitted and therefore the sa