The only question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the Courts below were right in holding that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, particularly when there is a pleading that the respondents-defendants have created mortgage on the plaint schedule property in favour of the Bank and the same has not been discharged and the Bank had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants?

2. The appellant presented plaint in O.S.No.Nil/98 (G.L.No.5492/Dt.12-10-1998) before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21-10-1992. Along with the plaint, the agreement of sale and legal notices dated 5-7 -1995 and 30-10-1995 were also filed. The notice dated 30-10-1995 is said to have been returned on 13-11-1995. However, the plaint was rejected on 27-10-1998 passing the following Order:

"This plaint filed for numbering of the suit on the objections raised by the Court. In this plaint, the plaintiff filed the plaint against the defendants for specific performance of the contract and in respect of the sale of land by the defendants. Thissale agreement entered by