Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The appeal impugns the order dated 07.08.1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the plaint, in suit No.87/1994 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property, on an application of the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and the Trial Court record requisitioned. The counsels have been heard.

3. The Trial Court in the impugned order has held:

(i) that specific performance was claimed of a written Agreement to Sell dated 02.07.1973;

(ii) that as per the Agreement to Sell, peaceful possession of the entire property agreed to be sold had been delivered to the appellants/plaintiffs;

(iii) that the suit for specific performance was filed on 29.04.1994;

(iv) that as per the written Agreement to Sell, the time for performance of the contract fixed in the agreement was till 02.12.1973;

(v) that as per the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance is three years from the date fixed for performance and if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused;

(vi) that though the appellants/plaintiffs have filed some letters extending the time for performance but the said time also was extended last for six months with effect from August, 1976 i.e. expiring on 01.02.1977 and the suit filed in 1994 was beyond three years therefrom also;

(vii) that the appellants/plaintiffs had also pleaded that sons and grandsons of one of the respondents/defendants had in July, 1985 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from selling the property and to have the sale made by the respondents/defendants in favour of the appellants/plaintiff declared as null and void but the said suit was also dismissed on 05.04.1989;

(viii) that the suit filed in 1994 was beyond three years therefrom also;

(ix) that there was no acknowledgment in writing within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act which can give a fresh period of limitation for filing the suit;

(x) that though the appellants/plaintiffs have pleaded that the respondents only after August, 1991 had started avoiding the appellants/plaintiffs and till then were assuring the appellants/plaintiffs that they will obtain the requisite permissions for execution of the Sale Deed and execute the Sale Deed but the said assurances were verbal only; oral acknowledgement cannot be proved since oral acknowledgment cannot give a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act which requires the acknowledgment to be in writing;

(xi) that the respondents/defendants were not going to admit any such cause of action having arisen and accrued to the appellants/plaintiffs in the month of August, 1991 and thereafter;

(xii) that the fact that the appellants/plaintiffs were in possession of the property agreed to be sold did not make any difference to the aspect of limitation;

(xiii) that the appellants/plaintiffs were not diligent and slept over their rights and there was nothing preventing them from within three years of expiry of the last extension as aforesaid in February, 1977 institute the suit;

(xiv) that nothing prevented the appellants/plaintiffs from filing the suit for specific performance when they came to know from the suit filed by the sons and grandsons of the respondents/defendants at Kurukshetra that the intentions of the respondents/defendants had gone dishonest; even though the said suit was dismissed on 05.04.1989 but the appellants/plaintiffs still kept sleeping till 1994; and (xv) that since the time for performance was fixed in the present case, the limitation has to be counted from the said date only; It was thus held that the suit was barred by time and the plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

4. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has contended that sinc