B.N. KARIA, J.

1. Instant appeal is preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["the Code" for short], being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30th September 2015 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad which upholds the Application moved under Order VII Rule 11 [d] of the Code on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per averments made in the plaint, on 8th December 1988, ancestor of the respondents nos. 1/1 to 1/6 herein ie., late Shri Chimanbhai Jivabhai Patel had executed an Agreement to Sale with possession. Out of stipulated consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been paid by the appellant who took over possession of the suit property in terms of condition no. 2 of the agreement to sale. That, without there being any cancellation deed of the Agreement to Sale dated 8th December 1988 and even without knowledge of the appellant or even for that matter without the consent of the appellant, the heirs of deceased-Chimanbhai Jivabhai Patel [respondents Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 herein] have executed sale deed dated 25th February 2011 in favour of the respondents no. 2 to 4 herein disposing of part of the suit property. These respondents no. 2 to 4 thereafter had sold that part of the suit property to the respondents no. 5 to 13 without the knowledge of the appellant. Not only that, the respondents no. 2 to 4 herein disposed of remaining part of the suit property in favour of the respondent no. 14 herein, though the agreement to sale with possession dated 8th December 1988 has never been cancelled. As a sequence of events, on 16th April 2015, the respondents no. 5 to 13 executed a development agreement in favour of respondent no. 15; and whereas, the respondent no. 14 mortgaged the suit property with the respondent no. 16. This chronology of events came to light when the respondent no. 15 visited the site and in pursuance thereto, the appellant took out a search report from the office of Sub-Registrar to ascertain the fact with respect to the aforesaid alleged transactions between the heirs of the deceased Chimanbhai with that of the respondents no. 2 to 16. On the basis of these facts, the appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 1234 of 2014 against the heirs of deceased-Chimanmbhai Jivabhai Patel and Others, praying for [a] specific performance of agreement to sale dated 8th December 1988; [b] cancellation of documents referred to therein; [c] restraining the respondents from dealing with the suit property and [d] restraining the respondents from disturbing the appellant's peaceful possession of the suit property. The appellant also took out a notice of motion for interim relief. The respondents filed their replies. The respondents no. 5 to 7 in particular filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 [b], [c] and [d] of the Code contending inter alia that [a] no action was taken by the appellant to get the sale deed executed, and therefore, the appellant's suit was barred by Section 16 [c] of the Specific Relief Act; [b] for want of action for twenty two long years, the right of enforcement of an agreement to sale dated 8th December 1988 becomes barred by the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act; [c] the other legal heirs of deceased Hanubhai Bharwad have not been joined as party respondents and therefore in absence of any right to inherit the suit property allegedly agreed to have been sold in pursuance to an agreement dated 8th February 1988, the suit becomes barred by provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code; [e] that late Shri Hanubhai Bharward nor the appellant have during their life time indulged into correspondence showing that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and on demise of Shri Hanubhai Bharward, the appellant filed the suit; and lastly [f] the appellant had failed