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