Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) Petitioners -plaintiffs by this writ petition have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 (Annex.1) passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the learned court below') whereby the learned court below has rejected the plaint of the petitioners at the threshold without its registration as barred by limitation.
(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of this petition are that petitioners -plaintiffs instituted a civil suit against the respondents -defendants before the learned court below for specific performance of contract, perpetual injunction and other consequential reliefs. The edifice of the suit as set out in the plaint is shown as agreement to sale dated 25.08.1995 allegedly executed in their favour jointly by one Jawarelal and respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In terms of agreement to sale, Jawarelal and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to sell their agricultural land of khasra No. 254 village Sangariya, Jodhpur at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/ - per bigha and earnest money was paid by them to the tune of Rs. 2,61,000/ -. It is further agreed that within three months, additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - shall be paid by the petitioners. In the agreement to sale, 15 months duration was prescribed with a clear stipulation that within that period petitioners shall pay the entire consideration amount to the respondents for facilitating registration of the sale deed in their favour. Besides that, other terms and conditions were also incorporated in the agreement to sale. The last date for execution of sale deed was also mentioned as 14.11.1996. The total measurement of the land was shown as 7 bighas and 9 biswas in the agreement to sale. As per the averments in the plaint, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - to Jawarelal and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 07.04.1996 and, therefore, by 07.04.1996 a total amount of Rs. 4,61,000/ - was paid against the consideration amount. It is averred in the plaint by the petitioners that immediately after paying Rs. 2,00,000/ - they came to know that the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (now, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur) has taken a resolution for floating Vivek Vihar Scheme for developing housing colony and commercial complexes at village Kudi Bhagtasani and Sangariya and requisite survey in this behalf has already been conducted. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that the said scheme shall be developed on the land of village Kudi Bhagtasani and Sangariya which is located towards eastern and western side of the railway line of Jodhpur to Pali and proceedings for acquisition of land in this behalf is in offing. With all these facts, petitioners have asserted in the plaint that all the petitioners and the ancestors of the respondents have agreed to act upon the agreement to sale after completion of the acquisition proceedings by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (for short 'the UIT, Jodhpur'). It is further averred that earlier, khasra No. 254 was not included in Vivek Vihar Scheme but subsequently the measurement of the said land was also carried out by the UIT, Jodhpur. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as per version of the petitioners, the requisite notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in July, 2000 and the matter remained pending due to judicial intervention. Finally, the UIT, Jodhpur took over the possession of the land between June 2012 to December 2012 and thereafter in January 2013, developmental activities were started and roads were constructed. During this period, according to the petitioners, they negotiated with the ancestors of the respondents and, therefore, execution of sale deed pursuant to agreement to sale was deferred. In July 2014, according to the petitioners, Jawarelal informed them that since his mother has expired, therefore, he is not in a position to execute the sale deed and as such the same was deferred. For showing the cause of action, the petitioner has also mentioned in the plaint that a legal notice was served on 08.08.2014 but the same returned back vis   -vis Jawarelal as he expired on 07.08.2014. The notice was, however, served on the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. In substance, the petitioners have pleaded in the plaint that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Jawarelal have failed to perform their part of the contract. Taking into account the fact that before institution of the suit, Jawarelal expired, therefore, his legal representatives are impleaded as defendants in the suit who are respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in the present petition. In the plaint, a total apathy is attributed to the respondents for not carrying out their part of the contract and as such in that background, the petitioners claimed relief of specific performance of contract.
(3.) The learned court below before registration of the suit prima facie examined the averments contained in the plaint and found that suit is ex -facie barred by limitation inasmuch as the petitioners have made endeavour for enforcement of agreement to sale which was executed on 25.08.1995 wherein a specific period of 15 months was prescribed for its execution. It is in that background, learned court below found that suit is barred by limitation as it has been presented after expiry of three years from the date fixed for the performance by virtue of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Limitation Act').;