The suit for specific performance and certain reliefs was barred by the law of limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

1. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale dated 25th October 1996 with Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff has sued the Constituted Attorney of one Juni Mill Bekar Kamgar Varasdar Aani Janhit Sangharsh Samiti.

2. Under the agreement for sale the parties agreed that the sale deed would be executed and the sale would be completed by 25th April 1997. That was within six months of the execution of the agreement for sale. The parties further agreed that if that could not be executed, the Vendor would pay the purchaser interest at the usual bank rate for each day’s delay and damages.

3. The Plaintiff filed the suit in 2007.

4. The agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 expressly fixed the date for the performance of the agreement. The suit, therefore, had to be filed within three years of the date fixed for performance under the former part of Article 54 to Schedule-I of the Limitation Act 1963. The Plaintiff’s suit is much after the period of limitation.

5. It is contended by the Plaintiff that the further agreement between the parties, after fixing the date for payment, for payment of interest of each day’s delay and damage to the Plaintiff takes the case of the Plaintiff outside the purview of the former part of Article 54.

6. The execution of the agreement is admitted. The clause relating to the fixed date of performance of the agreement and the further agreement for payment of interest will have to be interpreted. It will have to be seen whether the date fixed for performance would have to be given a go-by upon the agreement between the parties for payment of interest in case of default.

7. Even if the further agreement between the parties for payment of interest would give the parties the right to claim interest, it would not extend the date of performance. The date of performance expressly fixed remains fixed. It is that date of performance which gives the parties the right to sue for specific performance of the agreement for sale. The parties would have further rights and entitlements. One such right is the payment of interest. Consequently, if the sale is not completed and the sale deed is not executed on or before the date fixed, aside from the right to sue for specific performance, the party would be entitled to a further right to claim interest. The right to claim interest would be available for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit. No party can claim interest upon default of execution for a period of larger than three years.

8. Since the right to claim interest is a separate and independent right under the later part of the agreement. It does not, in any manner, impinge upon the right of specific performance of the agreement. If that right is claimed, it must be claimed within three years of the date fixed for execution. The grant of interest would not extend beyond that date.

9. If the parties extend the date of performance, the parties would agree to a later date to be fixed.

10. In this case the date fixed by the parties has remained at that. No other date is fixed, no extension for the performance of the contract is, therefore, agreed upon or granted between the parties. In fact the interest which was agreed to be payable has also not been claimed. Counsel on behalf of the applicant, therefore, rightly contends that there is no novatio between the parties. The date expressly fixed for the performance by the parties under the agreement remains and the suit for specific performance would, therefore, not fall within the latter part of Article 54.

11. Since the Plaintiff would be entitled to specific performance of the contract as also the right to claim interest for each day’s delay under the agreement, the Plaintiff has claimed both these reliefs. Under Article 54 the Specific Performance cannot be claimed. The interest for the delayed execution of the sale deed can be claimed. That, of course, may be granted for a period of three years prior to the suit only as that would b