The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence in pursuing remedies before quasi-judicial tribunals and the time limit for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract under the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. The Court: The defendant No.2 is the applicant. This is an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is ex facie barred by laws of limitation and also barred by law.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit on 26th August, 2013 for a declaration that the Agreement for Sale dated 2nd February, 2008 executed between the plaintiff and the Late Dr. N.K. Achari is valid and subsisting. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale and other consequential reliefs.

3. Shorn of details, the facts narrated in the plaint are :

Dr. N.K. Achari (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was a Neurosurgeon. The defendant No.2 is the nephew of the deceased. The plaintiff was engaged in the development of real estate. The deceased requested the plaintiff to arrange accommodation for him in Calcutta. Initially rented accommodation was arranged for the deceased and, thereafter, a flat being No.3B on the 3rd Floor of the building at 8B, Wood Street, Calcutta – 700 016 (hereinafter referred to as the “said flat”) which the plaintiff initially negotiated and thought of acquiring for himself from Oxide India Limited was ultimately sold in favour of the deceased on the terms negotiated by the plaintiff with Oxide India Limited with a promise that the plaintiff, in any event, ever intended to sell the said flat would give the first offer to the plaintiff to purchase the said flat. The plaintiff due to long acquaintance with the deceased had agreed to sale on such terms and had negotiated and had facilitated the plaintiff to acquire the said flat on the terms negotiated by the plaintiff.

4. In or about March, 2007, the deceased entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell and transfer and the plaintiff acquired the said flat at and for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. However, the deceased would be entitled to reside at the said flat along with the plaintiff’s family during his visits to Calcutta throughout his lifetime. Since the plaintiff was in America, it was agreed that the deceased would execute conveyance of the said flat in favour of the plaintiff on his return to India. The plaintiff in part3 performance thereafter had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- and an agreement for sale was recorded in a letter dated 8th March, 2007.

5. On 2nd February, 2008, a formal agreement for sale was entered into. The plaintiff in part-performance of the said agreement was put to possession on 2nd February, 2008. The deceased died on 17th April, 2008. Prior to his death, an envelope was handed over to the plaintiff with instructions to hand over the same to the defendant No.2 up to his death. It later transpired that the said envelope was said to contain a Will in which the defendant No.2 was named as an Executor of the estate of the deceased. Accordingly, the defendant No.2 was requested by the plaintiff to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. However, in the evening of 24th August, 2010, the defendant No.2 with policemen arrived at the said flat and tried to evict the plaintiff by force unauthorizedly and illegally. The plaintiff immediately contacted to an advocate, Mr. S.K. Ghosh who advised to lodge a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal and, accordingly, on 29th September, 2010, a complaint was lodged and the same was numbered as S.C./C 70 of 2010 praying for the following reliefs:-

(a) to execute and register the deed of conveyance thereby transferring, conveying and selling the suit flat in favour of your petitioner upon receipt of the balance consideration money of Rs.29,85,000/- from your petitioner;

(b) to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to your petitioner for causing unnecessary harassments and delay in completing the transaction since 17th April, 2008;

(c) to pay cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/-;

(d) injunction;

(e) and allow any other relief as your petitioner may be entitled to in law and in enquiry;

6. On 2n