1. On 15/9/2011 I had passed following order:

“1. Heard Mr. Dilip Bodke, Advocate for the Appellants/Applicants and Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 A to 3C. In the peculiar facts of this case, which will be narrated by me hereinafter without issuing formal rule on this Civil Application, this Civil Application and the Second Appeal are proposed to be disposed of by framing questions of law in the Second Appeal. It is therefore, necessary to narrate a few facts.

2. Yashoda Jagannath Ghorpade and Godabai @ Shashikala Uttam Dhane who are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Second Appeal had filed R.C.Suit No. 34 of 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Satara for specific performance of an Agreement of re-conveyance, possession and mesne profits. Tanaji Ghorpade was impleaded as Defendant No. 3. Eknath Ghorpade was impleaded as Defendant No.7. Said Eknath died during the pendency of the Suit and hence Defendant Nos. 7-1 to 7-3 who are Respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(c) in this Second Appeal were brought on record as heirs of the Defendant No. 7 Eknath. They filed purshis Exh. 28 and supported the original Plaintiffs.

3. By Judgment and Order dated 6/9/1994, Learned II Jt. CJJD, Satara dismissed the Suit.

4. Aggrieved by this Decree of dismissal, original Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 470 of 1994 in the District Court at Satara and in the said Appeal, the heirs of original Defendant No. 7 were impleaded as Respondent Nos. 7a to 7c. The said heirs independently filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1994 in the District Court at Satara. Ordinarily, both the Appeals arising out of the same Judgment and Decree ought to have been clubbed together, heard together and disposed off by a common Judgment. However, that does not appear to have been done and Regular Civil Appeal No. 470 of 1994 filed by the original Plaintiffs was heard first. It appears that during the pendency of the said Appeal, original Defendant No. 3 Tanaji who was Respondent No. 3 in Civil Appeal No. 470 of 1994 died on 15/6/1998 but his heirs were not brought on record. Consequently the said Appeal abated as against the said Respondent No.3 Tanaji. Nevertheless, hearing of the Appeal proceeded and by Judgment and Order dated 24/9/2004, the learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Satara dismissed the said R.C. Appeal No. 470 of 1994 filed by the original Plaintiffs. This Order was challenged by the original Plaintiffs by filing Second Appeal No. 927 of 2005 in this Court and the learned Single Judge (P.V. Kakade, J) dismissed the Second Appeal by Judgment and Order dated 6/9/2005 at the stage of admission itself. The said order reads thus:

“1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Satara, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Satara, dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the record including the judgments of both the Courts below.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of the contract which was executed on 8.5.1956 in which the suit for specific performance came to be filed on 11.1.1988 i.e. about 32 years after the execution of the document. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Without further elaboration, with regard to the facts involved, it is evident position that the plaintiffs’ witness in his cross-examination has admitted that deceased Eknath had gone to the house of defendants with money and demanded them to reconvey the suit land showing his readiness to repay the consideration amount and at that time the defendants refused to reconvey the suit property in their favour on the basis of the agreement of 1956 Exh.61 and, therefore, though the terms of agreement showed that there was no specific time limit fixed for the performa