The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of specific performance of contract, the suit may be barred by limitation if the agreement stipulates a specific date for performance of the contract, and the suit should have been filed within three years from that date.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. This revision application involves a question, as to whether or not the present suit, filed for specific performance of contract, is barred on the face of it by limitation.

5. In the present case, the respondents filed a civil suit bearing R.C.S. No.212/2016, against the applicant. The respondents claimed to be the legal heirs of deceased Ramkalibai Tarachand Gupta, who had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property comprising two plots admeasuring 2100 sq.ft., as per the proposed layout plan, out of field survey no.7, situated at Mouza Shegaon, Tahsil and District Amravati. This agreement was of 26/04/1985 and it provided for execution of the sale deed, latest by 30/12/1986. This date was extended to 31/03/1989. However, it appears that the sale deed was not executed in favour of Ramkalibai. Ramkalibai died on 13/11/2011. The respondents, being the sons and daughter of deceased Ramkalibai and Tarachand, learnt in the year 2015 about entering into an agreement to purchase the suit property executed between Ramkalibai and the applicant. They demanded specific performance of contract from the applicant, but in vain. Therefore, the respondents filed a civil suit in June-2016 against the applicant, claiming specific performance of contract dated 26/04/1985, by giving the direction to him to execute the sale deed of two plots admeasuring 2100 sq.ft.

6. After filing of the appearance before the trial court by the defendant no.1, who is the present applicant, the applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “C.P.C.”) for rejection of the plaint, contending that on the face of it, by accepting the plaint pleadings as they are, the suit was barred by law. Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act was pressed into service. The application was opposed by the respondents. After hearing both sides, the trial court held that the suit involved a mixed question of law and facts, and therefore, he rejected the application by the order passed on 03/05/2017. Not being satisfied with the same, the applicant is before this Court in this Revision Application.

7. Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that only on the basis of the plaint pleadings, taken at their face value, one can say that the suit is barred by law of limitation, because the pleadings in the plaint themselves show that there was stipulated in the agreement to sell, time for performance of contract and it was upto 31/03/1989 and the limitation period of three years as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act began to run from 31/03/1989.

8. Shri Pande, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case, it could not be said that the suit for specific performance of contract is barred by limitation because there were several other conditions in the agreement to sell dated 26/04/1985, which were to be performed by the defendants and as they were not performed by the defendants, it could not be said that limitation began to run in this case from 31/03/1989. He also submits that on the date of execution of agreement to sell dated 26/04/1985, the defendants/vendors were not the owners of the suit property and that they acquired the suit property, some time later, and therefore, mentioning of the date of 31/03/1989 as the date for execution of the sale deed is of no consequence, in this case.

9. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the following cases.

(i) Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. Vs. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 614.

(ii) Kanayalal Madhavji Thakkar Vs. Shree Padmanabh Builders, 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 939.

(iii) Selwyn Agnelo Botelho Vs. Norton D'Souza, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5017.

(iv) Anand Laxmi Enterprises Vs. Vasant Balu Mhatre and others, 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 445.

(v) Venkatanatha Chary Vs. Nalla Raji Reddy, (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 654.

10.