Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K.VISHEN, MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Saharbhai Lallubhai Rabari – Appellant
Versus
Thakore Naranji Savadhanji – Respondent
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. Disregardin
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.
The court ruled that the rejection of the plaint was erroneous as it did not consider the merits of the case, emphasizing that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
The suit was filed after a delay of 28 years and no genuine cause of action was found from the plaint, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The main legal point established is that a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation if filed beyond the prescribed period, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The issue of limitation for specific performance of a contract is a mixed question of fact and law, and the plaint cannot be rejected solely based on the averments in the plaint.
Court emphasized the impact of pandemic-related extensions on limitation periods, affirming that the suit, filed within the extended timeframe, was not barred by limitation.
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the plaint as time-barred, emphasizing the necessity of timely enforcement of agreements and the court's duty to examine plaints for cause of action.
The absence of a fixed date for performance in a contract for sale means that the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance begins when the plaintiff receives notice of refusal, ma....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
