Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: VI,5,12,VII,11

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: IX,113

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: I,12,

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VI, Rr. 5, 12 & O. VII, R. 11--- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 113---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Rejection of plaint---Pleadings, contents of---Oral agreement--Limitation---Petitioner/ plaintiff was aggrieved of concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below rejecting suit filed by him---Validity---Where pleading as to existence of agreement was pleaded from conversations, it was not necessary for petitioner/ plaintiff to spell out entire contract in detail---It was proper to make general claim as to the contract which petitioner/plaintiff was attempting to enforce---If plaint was ambiguous, the Court could ask for further and better particulars to be filed by petitioner/plaintiff under the provisions of O. VI, R. 5 C.P.C.---Just because the terms of agreement were not spelt out, such agreement could not be treated as unenforceable and could not be automatically rejected underO. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Once agreement to sell was admitted by respondent/defendant and various terms of oral agreement were unilaterally modified by respondent/ defendant, the same amounted to respondent/defendant refusing to perform his obligations on such oral agreement of sale and such admission had given petitioner/plaintiff a right to maintain a lis for specific performance---Date of legal notice was 12-05-2018, time period for institution of lis was to be determined from that date and having been presented on 6-05-2019, suit was within time period specified under Art. 113 of First Sched. of Limitation Act, 1908, and which, subject to evidence to the contrary of any other issue of limitation was maintainable before the Trial Court---There was a material irregularity in judgments passed by two Courts below and both failed to apply the law in respect of application of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., properly---High Court revised judgments by two Courts below which were set-aside and application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was dismissed---High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision on merits---Revision was allowed accordingly.Abdul Waheed v. Mst.…