Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NISHA M.THAKORE
Laljibhai Bhudarbhai Desai – Appellant
Versus
Haribhai Jairambhai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NISHA M. THAKORE, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.A. Mehd, learned advocate on record for the appellant and Mrs. Nisha M. Parikh, learned advocate on record for the respondent.
2. The present appeal is preferred at the instance of the original plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Viramgam in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 2022. By the said impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge has partly allowed the application preferred by the present respondent-original defendant no.2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at Exh.14, consequently, leading to the rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit.
3. The brief facts as can be gathered from the record of the present appeal, are summarized as under:
3.1 It is the case of the original plaintiff that an agreement to sell was entered upon in respect of various parcels of agricultural lands of the ownership of the defendants situated in sim of Moje, Jalisana, Taluka-Mandal, District-Ahmedabad. Such agreement to sell was executed on 16.10.2015 before the notary which was entered vide serial no.737 of 2015 in presenc
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 reaffirmed that suits for specific performance must be filed within the limitation period, and failure to do so results in dismissal.
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.
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell was clearly barred by the law of limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act,....
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.
Contractual obligations in specific performance suits require timely action; failure to act within statutory limitation renders claims void.
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.
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
