Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Subhash Chand S/O Hanuman Prasad vs Dayaram on 21 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:27836]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 771/2026
URN: CFA / 1199U / 2026
Subhash Chand S/o Hanuman Prasad, Resident Of Village
Kansali, Tehsil Kotputli, At Present Resident Of 10, Desu Colony,
Janakpuri, Delhi-10058.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dayaram, S/o Narayan,
2. Pooran, S/o Narayan,
3. Hanuman, S/o Narayan,
4. Pushpa, D/o Narayan,
5. Reshmi, D/o Narayan,
6. Nando Devi, W/o Narayan
7. Ramkishan S/o Umrao, All 1 To 7 Are Resident Of Village
Kansali, Tehsil Kotputli.
8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Kotputli.
9. Shreeman Sub-Registrar Sahab, Kotputli,
10. Shreeman District Collector, Kotputli,
11. Babulal, S/o Hanuman
12. Beena, W/o Ramesh
13. Gaurav, S/o Ramesh
14. Chitra D/o Ramesh, All Are Resident Of Village Kansali,
Tehsil Kotputli.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek with
Mr. Kshitiz Sharma and
Mr. Pranav Pareek for Respondent
No. 7
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
1. Arguments Concluded On: 09.07.2026
2. Judgment Reserved On: 09.07.2026
3. Full Judgment/Operative Part Pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Pronounced On: 21.07.2026
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 05:45:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 02:04:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27836] (2 of 7) [CFA-771/2026]
vihykFkÊ@oknh ¼ftls vkxs vihykFkÊ dg dj lEcksfèkr fd;k
tk,xk½ ds }kjk ;g nhokuh çFke vihy varxZr èkkjk 96 lifBr vkns’k
41 fu;e 1 o 2 flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk fo}ku~ vfrfjä ftyk U;k;kèkh’k
Øe la[;k 04 dksViwryh] ftyk dksViwryh&cgjksM+ ¼ftls vkxs fo}ku~
fopkj.k U;k;ky; dg dj lEcksfèkr fd;k tk,xk½ ds }kjk flfoy çdj.k
la[;k 31@2015 esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 17-04-2026 ls
O;fFkr gksdj çLrqr djh gS ftles fo}ku~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; us
çR;FkÊx.k@çfroknhx.k ¼ftUgs vkxs çR;FkÊx.k dg dj lEcksfèkr fd;k
tk,xk½ ds }kjk çLrqr vkns’k 07 fu;e 11 flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dk
çkFkZuka i= Lohdkj dj vihykFkÊ@oknh dk okn ifjlhek ls ijs gksus ds
dkj.k [k+kfjt dj fn;kA
vihykFkÊ ds fo}ku~ vfHkHkk”kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkns’k 7 fu;e 11¼?k½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk
ds varxZr okni= vLohdkj djrs le; fofèk ,oa rF;ksa dk leqfpr ijh{k.k
ugÈ fd;k x;kA vkns’k 7 fu;e 11 flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds varxZr fopkj
djrs le; dsoy okni= esa oÆ.kr dFkuksa dks gh ns[kk tkuk vko’;d gS
rFkk çfroknhx.k }kjk çLrqr çfrj{kk ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA
vihykFkÊ ds fo}ku~ vfHkHkk”kd us ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k fd okni= ds vuqlkj
i{kdkjksa ds eè; fookfnr Hkwfe ds lacaèk esa ekSf[kd foØ; vuqcaèk gqvk Fkk
rFkk çR;FkÊx.k le;≤ ij foØ; foys[k fu”ikfnr djus dk vkÃœoklu
vihykFkÊ dks nsrs jgsA okni= esa dgÈ Hkh ;g mYys[k ugÈ gS fd çR;FkÊx.k
us fdlh iwoZ le; ij vuqcaèk dk ikyu djus ls Li”V ,oa vafre :i ls
badkj fd;k Fkk vfirq okni= ds vuqlkj çFke ckj çR;FkÊx.k }kjk fnukad
06-12-2024 ,oa 20-12-2024 dks fookfnr Hkwfe dk foØ; çfroknh Øekad 7
ds i{k esa fd, tkus ls vihykFkÊ dks vuqcaèk ds ikyu ls badkj dk Kku
gqvkA vr% okn nk;j fd, tkus dh frfFk ij okn ifjlhek ls ckfèkr ugÈ
ekuk tk ldrkA vihykFkÊ ds fo}ku vfèkoäk us vkxs rdZ fn;k fd
vuqPNsn 54] ifjlhek vfèkfu;e ds vuqlkj tgk¡ fu”iknu gsrq dksà fuf’pr
frfFk fuèkkZfjr u gks] ogk¡ ifjlhek ml fnu ls çkjEHk gksrh gS tc oknh dks
fu”iknu ls badkj dk Kku gksA oknh dks badkj dk Kku dc gqvk] ;g ,d
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 05:45:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 02:04:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27836] (3 of 7) [CFA-771/2026]
fookfnr rF;kRed ç’u gS] ftldk fuèkkZj.k lk{; ds fcuk ugÈ fd;k tk
ldrkA vr% orZeku çdj.k esa ifjlhek dk ç’u rF; ,oa fofèk dk fefJr
ç’u gS] ftldk fu.kZ; lk{; xzg.k fd, fcuk ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk FkkA
blfy, okni= dks çkjfEHkd Lrj ij vLohdkj fd;k tkuk fofèklEer ugÈ
gSA
vihykFkÊ ds fo}ku~ vfHkHkk”kd us vius rdks± ds leFkZu esa fuEu
fofu’p; çLrqr fd;s gSA
1: P. Kumarakurubaran Vs P. Narayanan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw
(SC) 509 Order dated: 29.04.2025
2: Karam Singh Vs Amarjit Singh. AIR 2025 SC 5041 Order
dated: 15.10.2025
blds foijhr] çR;FkÊx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk”kd us fo}ku~ fopkj.k
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; dk leFkZu djrs gq, rdZ çLrqr fd;k
gS fd okni= esa oÆ.kr rF;ksa ls gh Li”V gS fd okn ifjlhek ls ckfèkr gSA
muds vuqlkj Lo;a vihykFkÊ dk dFku gS fd dfFkr ekSf[kd vuqcaèk o”kZ
1985 dk gS rFkk lg&[kkrsnkj }kjk vius fgLls dk foØ; o”kZ 2011 esa dj
fn;k x;k FkkA blds ckotwn vihykFkÊ }kjk yxHkx pkj n’kdksa rd
fof’k”V ikyu gsrq dksà dk;Zokgh ugÈ dh xÃA çR;FkÊx.k ds fo}ku
vfHkHkk”kd us ;g rdZ Hkh çLrqr fd;k fd vR;fèkd ,oa vLi”Vh–r foyEc
ds mijkUr dsoy ;g dg nsuk fd o”kZ 2024 esa igyh ckj vuqcaèk ds ikyu
ls badkj dk Kku gqvk] ifjlhek ds fofèkd çfrcaèk dks fu”çHkkoh ugÈ dj
ldrkA okni= esa oÆ.kr dFkuksa ls gh ;g Li”V ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd
vihykFkÊ dk nkok vR;fèkd foyfEcr ,oa fuf”Ø;rk ls xzLr gSA ,slh
fLFkfr esa okn çFke -“V;k gh ifjlhek ls ckfèkr çrhr gksrk gSA çR;FkÊx.k
ads fo}ku vfHkHkk”kd us ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd vihykFkÊ }kjk o”kZ 2024
dh foØ; foys[kksa dks vkèkkj cukdj ,d iqjkus ,oa dkyckfèkr nkos dks
iqutÊfor djus dk ç;kl fd;k x;k gSA vr% fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky;
}kjk vkns’k 7 fu;e 11¼?k½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds varxZr okni=
vLohdkj fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% U;k;ksfpr ,oa fofèklEer gS rFkk vihykFkÊ }kjk
lafLFkr ;g vihy fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 05:45:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 02:04:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27836] (4 of 7) [CFA-771/2026]
çR;FkÊx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk”kd us vius rdks± ds leFkZu esa fuEu
fofu’p; çLrqr fd;k gSA
1: Dahiben Vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D)
Thr. Lrs. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP
(Civil) No. 11618 of 2017) Order dated: 09.07.2020
mHk;i{kksa ds rdks± dks lquk x;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k
x;kA
;g fuÆookn gS fd vkns’k 7 fu;e 11 flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds
varxZr çkFkZuk&i= ij fopkj djrs le; dsoy okni= esa oÆ.kr dFkuksa dks
gh ns[kk tkrk gS rFkk çfroknh ds çfrj{kk dFku ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k tk
ldrkA bl çdkj dk vfHker ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;y; ds }kjk vius
fofu’p; “Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar“,
(2018) 6 SCC 422 ds iSjk Øekad 15 esa fd;k gS ftlds lqlaxr Hkkx
dks ;gk¡ ij mYysf[kr djuk U;k;ksfpr çrhr gksrk gSA
“15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue
in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule
11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint.
The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The
defence available to the defendants or the plea taken
by them in the written statement or any application
filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the
application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the
averments in the plaint are germane”.
okni= ds voyksdu ls ;g ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd vihykFkÊ dk
fof’k”V dFku gS fd i{kdkjksa ds eè; Hkwfe foØ; gsrq ekSf[kd vuqcaèk gqvk
Fkk rFkk çR;FkÊx.k le;≤ ij foØ; foys[k fu”ikfnr djus dk
vkÜoklu nsrs jgsA vihykFkÊ dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd çR;FkÊx.k }kjk çFke
ckj fnukad 06-12-2024 ,oa 20-12-2024 dks fookfnr Hkwfe dk foØ; r`rh;
i{k ds i{k esa fd;k x;k] ftlls mls vuqcaèk ds fu”iknu ls badkj dk Kku
gqvkA rRi’pkr vihykFkÊ }kjk fo}ku~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k okn nk;j
fd;k x;kA vuqPNsn 54] ifjlhek vfèkfu;e ds vuqlkj tgk¡ vuqcaèk ds
fu”iknu gsrq dksà fuf’pr frfFk fuèkkZfjr ugÈ gks] ogk¡ ifjlhek ml fnu ls
çkjEHk gksrh gS tc oknh dks fu”iknu ls badkj dk Kku gksrk gSA ifjlhek
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 05:45:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 02:04:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27836] (5 of 7) [CFA-771/2026]
vfèkfu;e ds vuqPNsn 54 dks ;gka mYysf[kr djuk U;k;ksfpr çrhr gksrk
gSA
Time from
Description of Suit Period of Limitation which period
begins to run
The date fixed for
the performance,
For specific performance Three Years or, if no such
of a Contract date is fixed,
when the plaintiff
has notice that
performance is
refused.
i=koyh ij miyCèk lkexzh rFkk okni= esa oÆ.kr rF;ksa dk voyksdu
djus ij ;g ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd orZeku okn esa oknxzLr laifÙk ds foØ;
i= dk fu”iknu djus gsrq dksà fuf’pr frfFk çR;FkÊx.k }kjk fuèkkZfjr ugÈ
dh x;h gSA tgka rd ;g ç’u gS fd oknh dks çR;FkÊx.k }kjk vuqcaèk ds
fu”iknu ls badkj dk Kku dc gqvk rFkk D;k fnukad 06-12-2024 ,oa
20-12-2024 dh foØ; foys[k gh çFke Li”V vLoh–fr ¼ refusal½ FkÈ] bl
rF; ds fuèkkZj.k gsrq lk{; visf{kr gSA bl lEcUèk esa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fofu’p; “Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah
v. Anton Elis Farel“, (2006) 3 SCC 634 ds iSjk Øekad 8 esa fuEu
vfHker O;ä fd;k x;k gS A
“8. We may straightaway say that the manner in which
the question of limitation has been dealt with by the
courts below is highly unsatisfactory. It was rightly
noticed that the suit was governed by Article 54 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. Then, the enquiry should have
been, first, whether any time was fixed for
performance in the agreement for sale, and if it was so
fixed, to hold that a suit filed beyond three years of the
date was barred by limitation unless any case of
extension was pleaded and established. But in a case
where no time for performance was fixed, the court
had to find the date on which the plaintiff had notice
that the performance was refused and on finding that
date, to see whether the suit was filed within three
years thereof. We have explained the position in the
recent decision in R.K. Parvatharaj Gupta v. K.C.
Jayadeva Reddy [(2006) 2 SCC 428 : (2006) 2 Scale
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 05:45:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 02:04:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27836] (6 of 7) [CFA-771/2026]
156] . In the case on hand, there is no dispute that no
date for performance is fixed in the agreement and if
so, the suit could be held to be barred by limitation
only on a finding that the plaintiffs had notice that the
defendants were refusing performance of the
agreement. In a case of that nature normally, the
question of limitation could be decided only after taking
evidence and recording a finding as to the date on
which the plaintiff had such notice. We are not
unmindful of the fact that a statement appears to have
been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs that they did not
want to lead any evidence. The defendants, of course,
took the stand that they also did not want to lead any
evidence. As we see it, the trial court should have
insisted on the parties leading evidence on this
question or the court ought to have postponed the
consideration of the issue of limitation along with the
other issues arising in the suit, after a trial”.
vr% ;g ç’u fd D;k fnukad 06-12-2024 ,oa 20-12-2024 dh foØ;
foys[k gh çFke Li”V vLoh–fr ¼refusal½ FkÈ] rF; ,oa fofèk dk fefJr
ç’u ¼mixed question of law and fact½ gSA tgk¡ ij dksà ç’u rF; voa
fofèk dk fefJr ç’u gksrk gS ml lEcUèk esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds
}kjk ikfjr fofu’p; “P. KUMARAKURUBARAN Vs. P.
NARAYANAN & ORS” 2025 INSC 598 vkns’k fnukafdr 29.04.2025
ds iSjk Øekad 12-1 esa fuEu vfHker O;ä x;k x;k gSaA
“12.1. However, we are of the considered view
that the issue as to whether the appellant had
prior notice or reason to be aware of the
transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether
the plea regarding the date of knowledge is
credible, are matters that necessarily require
appreciation of evidence. At this preliminary stage,
the averments made in the plaint must be taken
at their face value and assumed to be true. Once
the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and
forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of
limitation cannot be decided summarily. It
becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which
cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection
of the plaint on the ground of limitation without
permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally
unsustainable”
okni= ds dFkuksa dks ;Fkkor Lohdkj djus ij ;g ugÈ dgk tk
ldrk fd okn çFke -“V;k gh ifjlhek }kjk oÆtr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 05:45:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 02:04:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27836] (7 of 7) [CFA-771/2026]vkns’k 7 fu;e 11¼?k½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds varxZr fo}ku~ fopkj.k
U;k;ky; }kjk okni= dk vLohdkj fd;k tkuk fofèklEer ugÈ FkkAQyLo:i] vihykFkÊ }kjk çLrqr ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA
fo}ku~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;kèkh’k] Øe la[;k 04]
dksViwryh&cgjksM+ }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns’k ,oa fMØh fnukafdr
17.04.2026 fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk okn dks xq.k&nks”k ds vkèkkj ij fofèkvuqlkj fopkj.k ,oa fu.kZ; gsrq iqu% fo}ku~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks çsf”kr
fd;k tkrk gSA
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),JKISHAN SONI/Res.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 05:45:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 02:04:13 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
