Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1583 (TS)

Nalla Leela Rani v. Marka Raju

2025-11-20

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1 . The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.86 of 2022 in O.S.No.188 of 2022, dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal. 2. Petitioner herein is the petitioner-defendant No.8, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondent No.1 and 2-plaintiffs, respondent Nos.3 to 9 are other respondents-defendants in I.A.No.86 of 2022, which is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint i.e., O.S.No.188 of 2022. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed for rejection of plaint. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that petitioner has specifically pleaded that she is neither a party to the agreement of sale dated 12.05.2011 between respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.1 to 7, there is no transaction as such and there is no cause of action for respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs to implead and add the petitioner-defendant No.8 in the suit. 3.2. Learned trial Court erred in rejecting the petition on the ground that the respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.1 to 7 and petitioner herein are taking steps to compromise the earlier suit in O.S.No.666 of 2011 to defraud the rights of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs which is not sufficient to constitute any cause of action against the petitioner herein in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. 3.3. Learned trial Court has erred that the contentions raised thereon are mixed question of fact and law, hence, they cannot be decided at this stage even though there are no specific pleadings by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs, admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the alleged agreement of sale and the suit itself is not maintainable against the petitioner and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. Notices sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs are served. None appears for them. 5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. 4. Notices sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs are served. None appears for them. 5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K. Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC Online SC 985). 6.1 Respondent No.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.05.2011 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4-32 guntas in different survey numbers with specific boundaries. 6.2 It is stated in the plaint that respondent Nos.3 to 9- defendant Nos.1 to 7 came forward to sell the suit schedule property and the sale consideration is fixed at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre for Ac.4-32 guntas. Accordingly, an agreement of sale is executed on 12.05.2011. The total sale consideration for the entire property is Rs.48,00,000/-. In total, respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.44,50,000/- to respondent Nos.3 to 9 – defendant Nos.1 to 7 on different dates and the leftover amount is Rs.3,50,000/-. 6.3 Plaint paragraph No.7 goes to show that the petitioner- defendant No.8 has filed civil suit vide O.S.No.666 of 2011 against respondent Nos.3 to 9 – defendant Nos.1 to 7 in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further averred that the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 to 9 – defendant Nos.1 to 7 in order to defraud the rights of respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs are taking speedy efforts to compromise the suit in O.S.No.666 of 2011 and planning to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties, which the plaintiffs came to know recently as the defendant Nos.1 to 7 and petitioner herein (defendant No.8) are contacting third parties to alienate the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 to 2 herein) have issued a legal notice on 24.06.2017 to all the defendants. 6.4. Plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 to 2 herein) have issued a legal notice on 24.06.2017 to all the defendants. 6.4. The prayer in the suit is directing the defendant Nos.1 to 8 (respondent No.3 to 9 and petitioner herein) to come forward to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- from plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) and execute the registered sale deed, and to grant injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 8 (respondent Nos.3 to 9 and petitioner herein) from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. 7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter in I.A.No.86 of 2022, stating that there is a cause of action against the petitioner-defendant No.8 and she is a necessary party in the suit. 8. Learned trial Court taking into consideration the contentions raised by the parties has held that the contentions raised thereon are mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be decided at this stage unless a full fledged trial is conducted, thereby dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Usha Devi and others vs. Ram Kumar Singh and others , 2024 (5) ALD 50 (SC) paragraph No.9 is as under: 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that in the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement. The period of one month would expire on 16.01.1990, and once there is a specific date fixed for performance, the limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993. The trial Court thus held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed in September 1993. 10. After execution of agreement of sale in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs by respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.1 to 7, suit in OS No.666 of 2011 came to be filed by the petitioner-defendant No.8. 11. The trial Court thus held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed in September 1993. 10. After execution of agreement of sale in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs by respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.1 to 7, suit in OS No.666 of 2011 came to be filed by the petitioner-defendant No.8. 11. In Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole and others vs. Rohit Enterprises and others , SLA (C) No. 16809 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025 Supreme Court of India the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “it is well settled that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-suiting a plaintiff.” 12. As per the agreement of sale dated 12.05.2011, balance sale consideration of Rs.12,80,000/- is to be paid by the purchaser on or before 11.05.2012. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs made payments to respondent No.3-defendant No.1 in the year 2012, 2013, 2014 and in the month of January, 2015. The last payment made by respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs to respondent No.3- defendant No.1 is an amount of Rs.40,500/- vide cash receipt dated 01.01.2015. Suit is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2- plaintiff on 28.08.2017 which is within three years from the date of last payment i.e., 01.01.2015. It cannot be said that the time stipulated for filing the suit is barred by limitation. 13. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the contention raised by the parties therein and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for rejecting the plaint. The scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra in paragraph No.5. 14. The petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed.