The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a civil revision challenging the rejection of an application to throw out a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Justice Avnish Saxena held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the suit could not be treated as barred by limitation at this stage.
The dispute concerned a Lucknow plot and an agreement to sell under which the execution of the final sale deed depended on a subsequent transaction with the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
Background
The suit was filed by Anil Kumar Singh against the original defendants seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated May 8, 2015, and a permanent injunction restraining them from transferring the property to anyone else.
The agreement concerned a 360-square-metre plot in the Vrindavan Scheme on Raebareli Road, Lucknow, for a consideration of Rs 43 lakh. According to the plaint, Singh had paid Rs 18,37,500 towards the agreed amount.
The agreement provided that the sale deed in Singh's favour would be executed within six months after the housing authority registered the property in the original defendants' names and written notice was given to him.
Singh alleged that, despite his efforts to complete the transaction and legal notices sent in August and September 2016, he learnt on October 3, 2016, that the original defendants intended to transfer the property to third parties. He filed the suit on October 5, 2016.
Shashwat Kesarwani and another purchaser were subsequently added as defendants after claiming to have purchased the property through a sale deed dated November 23, 2016. They later sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the suit had been filed prematurely.
The High Court examined whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether the suit appeared to be barred by limitation. It emphasised that an application under Order VII Rule 11 must be decided primarily on the statements contained in the plaint.
The Court noted that the agreement did not specify a fixed calendar date for performance. Instead, the deadline depended on the housing authority executing the sale deed in favour of the original defendants and the subsequent written notice.
Referring to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court explained that where no date is fixed for performance, limitation is linked to when the plaintiff receives notice that performance has been refused.
The Court observed,
“The above discussion and averment of the plaint shows that the plaint discloses the cause of action.”
It also noted that the subsequent sale deed in favour of the newly impleaded defendants supported the plaintiff's pleaded apprehension that the property was being transferred to third parties.
On the objections concerning the Specific Relief Act, the Court held that those issues were matters for trial and did not provide grounds to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11.
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's order dated July 10, 2025, which had rejected the application seeking dismissal of the plaint.
It held that the revision petition lacked merit and dismissed it on October 7, 2026.
