Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Chomu Distt. Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 16/2013 whereby suit for specific performance and declaration filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed under O.7 R.11 CPC.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been finally heard at admission stage itself. The brief facts of the case are that appellants -plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance and for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 6.3.2013 and injunction relating to suit property on the strength of agreement to sell dated 22.5.1960 and the contention of the appellants in the suit was that in an agreement to sell executed on 22.5.1960 no period for registry has been agreed between the parties and it was agreed between the parties that whenever plaintiffs want to get a sale deed executed, they are free to do so. The respondents have executed sale deed in favour of respondents No. 9 and 10, hence the appellant plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 6.3.2013. The defendants have filed application under O.7 R..11 CPC on the ground that suit is barred by limitation as well as under the provisions of O.2 R.2 CPC, the court below has accepted the application, hence this appeal.
(3.) THE contention of the respondents before the court below was that suit is barred by O.2 R.2 CPC as earlier a suit was filed by plaintiff appellants before the revenue court and hence this second suit is barred by provisions of O.2 R.2 CPC. The contention of the present appellants is that before the revenue court, the suit has been filed only for cancellation of mutation and revenue court cannot entertain the suit for specific performance as well as cancellation of sale deed, apart from this, parties are not same before the revenue court and cause of action before the civil court are different and sale deed has been executed in 2013 whereas earlier suit before the revenue court was filed in the year 2006 when no cause of action as alleged in the present suit has arisen to the appellants. As regards limitation, the contention of the present appellants is that as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the limitation for suit for specific performance starts when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused and here in the present case when sale deed dated 6.3.2013 has been executed in favour of respondents No. 9 and 10 then only limitation under Section 54 come to run and court below has erred in dismissing the suit summarily. Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that admittedly, agreement to sell is of 1960, for 53 years, the appellants have done nothing to execute the sale deed and reference has also been made as regards to provisions of Section 23, 32 and 36 of the Registration Act. His further contention is that in revenue suit it has been specifically stated that entries in the revenue record has been entered in the name of respondent Bansi in 1984 and in 2006, the respondents have threated the present appellants that they will further sold the land and threatened them for eviction of the land which gives a cause of action for the suit for specific performance. The pleadings in the revenue suit specifically states that present appellants were apprehending that defendants would not execute the sale deed. In 1984 and when entries have been made in revenue record again in 2006, when threat have been given, cause of action has arisen to the present appellants. Cause of action is not a single act but it is bundle of facts and as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the cause of action of the present suit starts from the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 22.5.1960 and sale deed dated 6.3.2013 is only a consequential relief and could not reckon the limitation and court below has not erred in dismissing the suit.;