IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of specific performance where no time for performance is fixed in the agreement, the limitation period begins when the plaintiff notices refusal of performance, and the issue of limitation is to be determined after evidence is presented.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Admit.

2. Heard Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants and Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. The matter was heard finally at the admission stage itself, with the consent of the respective parties and as pointed out in the order dtd. 18/10/2022.

4. In a nutshell, by present revision, the applicants/original defendants are hereby challenging the impugned order dtd. 17/09/2022 passed by the learned Civil Court, Margao thereby dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Ramani strongly contended that on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is clear that the suit filed for specific performance is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. He further submitted that there is no cause of action for filing of the suit since the agreement of sale is silent as who has to obtain NOC's from the concerned departments. He invited attention to the impugned order and submitted that the Court below committed an error in rejecting such an application. He placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. T. Arivandandam v/s. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467.

2. Shri Vinayak Shankar Bawane and others v/s. Shri Tilakraj s/o. Indrajeet Chaddha, CRA No. 136 of 2019.

6. Per contra, Mr Coutinho appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the Trial Court rightly considered Article 54 of the Limitation Act and on that basis concluded that limitation starts only from the date when the plaintiffs had noticed that the performance of the contract is refused. In this respect, he would submit that the plaint if read as a whole would clearly disclose a specific cause of action in paragraph 13 and accordingly a suit is also within limitation. He further submitted that earlier there was no specific refusal to perform their part of a contract. In the alternative, Mr. Coutinho submitted that when the matter comes under the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the issue of limitation being a mixed question of fact and law is to be decided only on adducing evidence. He placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. Ahmmadsahab Adbul Milla (dead) by proposed Lrs v/s. Bibijan and Ors., 2009(3) Supreme 116.

2. Urvashiben and Ors v/s. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, (2019) 13 SCC 372.

7. A short question which cropped up in the present revision is whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and that it is within limitation.

8. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as they arrayed before the Trial Court. The applicants herein are the original defendants whereas respondents are plaintiffs.

9. The plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance and other reliefs under Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It is their specific contention that Late Jaime Antonio Pimenta, the predecessor of the defendants was the sole owner of the suit property wherein the mundkarial house was situated. Late Jaime Antonio Pimenta sold part of the respective properties to respective mundkars. Vide an agreement for sale with possession dtd. 14/11/1990 said Jaime Antonio Pimenta had agreed to sell an area of 1195 sq. mtrs. of his property to the father /father-in-law of the plaintiffs for a consideration paid of Rs.6000.00. The plaintiffs disclosed the boundaries of the said plot in paragraph 8 of the plaint. It is further claimed that at the time of execution of an agreement of sell total consideration of Rs.6, 000.00 was paid to Late Jaime Antonio Pimenta by the father/father-in-law of the plaintiffs with due acknowledgement and accordingly possession was handed over to the father/father-in-law of the plaintiffs. Since then the predecessor of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit plot without any objection or disturbance.

10. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the father/father-in-law of the plaintiffs and also Jaime Antonio Pimenta expired leaving