( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant from the judgment and Order dated 22nd july, 1993, delivered by (divakar rao), additional civil judge and c. j. m. at kolar, district kolar in regular appeal No. 75 of 1993, whereby the learned lower appellate court allowed the plaintiffs first appeal setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1993, delivered by the munsiff, mulbagal, in original suit No. 297 of 1992, dismissing the plaintiffs suit as barred by limitation and remanding the case to the trial court for decision of the suit on merits according to law.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 13-3-1987, wherein the defendant had agreed to sell the land mentioned in the schedule for a sum of Rs. 7,000/ -. According to the plaintiffs case, the agreement was to transfer a fragment of the holding. That there was bar against execution of sale deed in respect of fragment of the holding and the bar was lifted by the government in the month of february 1991. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent approached the defendants (appellants) requesting the defendant to execute the sale deed and pointing out and expressing his own readiness to perform his own part of contract. The plaintiff further pleaded that the plaintiff issue a legal notice on 13-11-1991, requiring the defendants to appear before the sub-registrar concerned and to execute the sale deed on 22-11-1991 in terms of the agreement indicating that he would be ready to get the sale deed executed before the sub-registrar, with all necessary money to perform his part of contract and called upon the defendants to be present before sub-registrar on 22-11-1991, to execute the registered sale deed in plaintiffs favour; that as per plaintiffs case, defendants did not appear before the sub-registrar on that date and failed to perform their part of the agreement. That after receipt of notice and sometime thereto, k. m. narayana setty-husband of defendant 1 and k. r. muniramaiah setty died leaving behind defendant-appellant 1-Smt. Kanthamma as, sole legal representative of km. Narayana setty, defendant 2 to 6 i. e. , appellants 2 to 6 as, sole legal representatives of late k. r. muniramaiah setty. The plaintiff-respondent's case has been that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to get the sale deed registered but as, defendant failed to appear before registrar on 2-11-1991 and thereafter so, need for suit did arise and cause of action for the suit is alleged to have' accrued sometimes in february 1991, when the state government relaxed the prohibition of registration of the sale deeds for the fragment of holding as well thereafter.

( 3 ) THE trial court of its own suo moto, acting under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, held that the suit is barred by limitation as according to it, the limitation of 3 years as prescribed under article 54 of the Limitation Act, did start from the date of agreement itself that is, from 13-3-1987 and the suit which was filed on the 1st of december, 1992, was held to have been barred by limitation under article 54 of the Limitation Act, for short, the 'act'. So, the trial court rejected the plaint holding the suit barred by limitation.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff, who is the present respondent preferred a regular appeal No. 75 of 1993, the learned civil judge considered the matter and set aside the Order of the trial court holding the plaintiffs suit to be within time/further, the learned civil judge held prima facie, that the opinion of the trial court and its, finding to the effect that suit was barred by limitation was incorrect and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to register the plaint and proceed with the trial of the case according to law.

( 5 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the judgment and Order of t