Punjab-Haryana High Court
Supkhpreet Kaur W/O Kartar Singh vs Shamsher Singh S/O Hardial Singh on 10 July, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.4052 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4052 of 2013
Date of Decision.10.07.2013
Supkhpreet Kaur w/o Kartar Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Shamsher Singh s/o Hardial Singh .......Respondent
Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner says that the suit is prima facie barred by limitation since the agreement which is sought to be enforced is dated 02.01.2007 and the period before when the sale deed was required to be made was 30.06.2007. According to him in terms of Article 54, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is for three years from the date when the sale was to be executed and to sustain his objection, he would require no evidence. It has to be only considered as a pure question of law without any evidence. The Court has observed that said issue of limitation has been framed as issue No.6 and even issue relating declaration of court fee has been framed as issue No.8 and therefore, there was no warrant for rejection of the plaint and states that it will be considered at the time of delivery of judgment.
2. I find that it will be inappropriate to assign it to conclusion of trial and for judgment and the case would require to be considered as Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.15 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No.4052 of 2013 -2- preliminary issues. I direct the Court below to take up issues No.6 and 8 as preliminary issues and dispose of the issues in accordance with law before commencement of the trial.
3. The order already passed rejecting the petition is maintained, however, the order is modified as above. Since I have not interfered with the order of declining to reject the plaint, I have dispensed with notice to the respondents. The civil revision is disposed of as above.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 10, 2013 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.15 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh