- (1.)THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revision filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 26th August, 2013 passed by the learned 21st Additional District Judge, Indore in COS no. 4 - A/2013 whereby, the said Judge allowed the application of the respondent under section 5 of the Limitation Act by suo motu and wrongly treating the said application as an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(2.)IT is the case of the petitioner that this present revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration , specific performance and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the petitioner Corporation. By the order impugned herein, the learned trial Court had allowed the respondent's application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed for condoning the delay in filing the above suit. The petitioners opposed the said application on the ground inter -alia that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to suits, and since the respondent's own case wast hat the suit was delayed by 72 days, the same was liable to be summarily dismissed as time barred.
The petitioners submit that initially the respondent had filed the suit claiming the same to be within limitation ( Annexure P/3 ). For its main relief of specific performance, the respondent relied entirely on the minutes of the meeting of the petitioner Corporation's Standing Committee which had considered the offers of the various prospective purchasers for the suit property, including the offer made by the respondent. According to the respondent, since his offer of Rs,. 8.40 lacs for the suit property was the highest and the same had also been approved by the Standing Committee, the said minutes had brought into existence a binding contract between the parties. The respondent further submitted that the only thing remaining to be done under the said minutes was the issuance of the sale letter to him. The petitioners submit that the minutes of the Standing Committee meeting ( Annexure -P/2 ) do not admit of the above interpretation sought to be placed on the same by the respondent. The said minutes neither constitute a concluded contract, nor show that any agreement for sale of the suit property by issuance of a sale letter had come into existence. In fact, from a bare perusal of the said minutes, it would be apparent that the same are no more than a bare record of the fact that out of the prospective purchasers who had submitted their respective bids, the respondent's bid of Rs. 8.40 lacs was the highest. Besides, even the approval of the respondent's said bid is shrouded in conditionalities in as much as the approval was given subject to the owner of the suit property being notified for bringing a better offer. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the above minutes of the Standing Committee are reproduced below :

"The bid not proceed further. The highest offerer has offered to pay 50% of the sale price ( at the time of issuing sale letter ) and remaining 50% in one month. The owner of the House, Shri Thakur, was also advised to appear before the Committee, but he did not turn up. In view of this, the Committee decided to refer the best offer of Rs. 8.40 lacs to the owner of the House to bring better offer, if any, within a week, i.e. 7th Aug, 2001. In case no response is received, the sale letter is to be issued to the purchaser. In the meantime, the sale negotiation of the house may also be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court Indore "

(3.)FROM the above extract, it is also apparent that the above development was also required to be communicated to the Hon'ble High Court in the petition filed before this Hon'ble Court by the owner of the suit property ( Shri A.K. Thakur ) Though the above provisions regarding communication to the owner of the suit property to bring a better price, as also for informing this Hon'ble Court about the above development in the mortgagor - owner's writ petition filed before this Hon'ble Court, negated the existence of any concluded contract, yet the respondent persisted with the issuance of the sale letter so that he could continue to hold on to the suit property without payment of rent which he was liable to pay as a tenant of the suit property to the owner thereof, Shri A.K. Thakur.