A suit for specific performance of a contract must be filed within a reasonable time, and if it is filed beyond a reasonable time, it should be dismissed on that ground alone.

The plaintiffs instituted a suit on 19-6-1984 in the Court of the Munsiff No. 1 at Nagaon for specific performance of contract.

2. The brief facts are as follows :

"The plaintiffs sold a plot of land to the defendant by a registered deed of sale on 19-2-1968. On the same date there was another registered deed of sale stating that if the plaintiffs returns back the consideration money, the land sold by the plaintiffs shall be reconveyed to the plaintiffs. It is stated in the plaint that the possession of the land was not delivered to the defendant and it continued with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs used to pay paddy rent to the defendant. It is stated in para 2 of the plaint that the plaintiffs requested the defendant to reconvey the land for the last 3 to 4 years, but that was not done. But the defendant got the land mutated in his name of 8-3-1984. There also was a proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and in that proceedings the possession of the land was declared in favour of the defendant. There was a revision before the Sessions Judge and that revision also was rejected. It is stated in para 3 of the plaint (by way of amendment) that the plaintiffs wanted to refund the money to the defendant but the defendant did not accept the money and as such he did not perform his part of the contract and as such the suit was filed for specific performance of contract.

3. Written statement was filed by the defendant wherein the defendant denied the execution of the reconveyance deed (agreement for sale Ext. I in the suit). It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs are not entitled to specific performance of contract. There was a plea that the suit is barred by limitation. Both the courts below held that Ext. I, the agreement for sale was duly executed by the defendant. So, this is basically a findings of fact and in the second appeal I am not inclined to interfere with that findings of fact. The trial Court decreed the suit. There was an appeal and that appeal also was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

4. The following are the substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether the readiness and willingness of the appellant to prove his part of contract was established ?

(ii) Whether there was compliance with provision of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act?

5. I have heard Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for respondents.

6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel urges the following points :

(i) That the plaint is not in conformity with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and as such no decree can be passed on the basis of such a plaint.

(ii) That the agreement (Ext.I) executed is a void one and it was not signed by both the parties.

(iii) That there was inordinate delay in filing the suit and on this ground alone no decree for specific performance of contract can be passed, inasmuch as a decree for specific performance of contract after all is a discretionary relief and that discretion cannot be exercised after a long lapse of time.

7. On the other hand, Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for respondents submits that in the agreement for sale (Ext. I) no time limit was fixed and as provided by Section 54 of the Limitation Act the suit can be filed within 3 years from the date of refusal to perform the contract. He submits that the date of refusal in this particular case must be the date on which the defendant got his name mutated to the land that must be deemed to be the final refusal on the part of the defendant and from that date the limitation will run.

8. Before I go to discuss this aspect of the matter, let us take up the second point as urged by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the contract i.e. Ext. I is void one as it was not signed by both the parties. The argument of Mr. Chakraborty has no force inasmuch as it runs counter to Section 10 of the Contract Act. Section 10 of the Contract Act provides what ag