A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell is time-barred when filed long after the first refusal, as seen in prior legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit no. 12 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit in question”) whereby, application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) filed by the defendant no.8 has been allowed and the plaint has been rejected. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit.

2. The brief facts are stated thus: The plaintiff claims that agreement to sell dated 10.02.2010 came to be executed with respect to land bearing old revenue survey no.76 and new revenue survey no.110 admeasuring 83,533 sq. mtrs. situated at village Nasmed, taluka Kalol (hereinafter referred as “the land in question”) in his favour by the defendant no.1 with a duration of twelve months with a further condition of obtaining title clearance certificate and non-agricultural permission which obligation, was on the defendant no.1. The automatic extension was contained in the said condition. The defendant has recently obtained the NA permission. Disregarding the agreement to sell, sale deeds have been executed in the years 2010, 2023 and lastly in the year 2024 in favour of respective defendants. Being aggrieved that the suit has been filed. The plaint has been rejected apropos the application Exh.14 filed by the defendant no.8, inter alia, on the ground of it being barred by limitation. Hence the captioned appeal.

-

3. Mr Kunjal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff while inviting the attention of this Court to the prayers in the plaint submitted that over and above the prayer seeking specific performance, the plaintiff has also claimed damages and compensation, coupled with further prayers of challenge to the sale deed of the year 2010 in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6 and thereafter, sale deed of the year 2023 by the defendant nos.3 to 6 in favour of defendant no.8 who, in turn has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.9. When there are multiple prayers, the learned Judge, was not right in rejecting the plaint. Moreover, the plaintiff has also prayed for relief of permanent injunction and hence, the plaint ought not to have been rejected.

3.1 It is next submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in selectively applying the provisions of Article 54 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1963") only while deciding the suit. In fact, considering the prayers, apart from Article 54, Articles 58 and 59 should have been applied. The learned Judge, while passing the order has focused only on the provisions of Article 54. Though the duration mentioned in the agreement to sell was twelve months, but as per further condition no.3 it required the original owner to obtain the title clearance certificate and the NA permission and until the title clearance certificate and NA permission were in place, there was an automatic extension contemplated in the agreement to sell. The defendant no.8, has obtained the NA permission only on 06.08.2024 which, is clear from the order passed by the office of the Collector & District Magistrate and hence, the limitation would start only from 06.08.2024 and the suit having been filed in the year 2025 is well within limitation. Therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have applied the provisions of Article 54 while considering the issue of limitation and rejecting the plaint on the ground of it being barred by limitation.

-

3.2 It is next submitted that in absence of clear refusal, the case would be covered by the latter part of Article 54 and not the former. It is further submitted that the learned Judge was not right in observing that the refusal was in the year 2010 and such observation was in wake of Special Civil Suit of 184 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “previous suit of 2010”) filed by the d