Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property appeals against the dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation; that point having been decided as a preliminary issue.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

3. On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the finding of the court below that the suit is barred by limitation is not sustainable in law or on facts and that the court below had erroneously held that the suit is barred by limitation merely because the suit was not filed within the period of three years from the date stipulated for the purpose of the contract for sale. It was also argued that the sequence of events and the conduct of parties, including the writ petition that was pending before the High Court of Kerala and other relevant aspects have not been considered. The learned senior counsel made reference to the pleadings in the plaint and argued that the averments therein called for an adjudication on facts after affording the plaintiff the opportunity to adduce evidence. The pleadings in the plaint, according to the learned senior counsel, disclose such events as were required to be determined and considered for the purpose of deciding as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. He made reference to WPC.No.28846 of 2004 filed by the respondent and argued that such conduct clearly demonstrated that the defendant respondent had itself pleaded before this Court about the requirement to complete the sale in terms of the contract for sale. It was argued that the proceedings then pending before the Enforcement Directorate had stood in the way of the plaintiff purchasing the property outright and the plaintiff had been always ready and willing to purchase the property. Reliance was placed on Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity [(2006) 5 SCC 340] to argue that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and that the question as to whether a suit for specific performance of contract will be barred by limitation or not, would not only depend upon the nature of the agreement, but also on the conduct of the parties and also as to how they understood the terms and conditions of the agreement. Reliance was also made to Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah v. Anton Elis Farel [(2006) 3 SCC 634] to argue that even if it is a case where the suit is governed by the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, that is to say, where the date is fixed for performance, it ought to have been further examined as to whether there was any case of extension pleaded and established. He also argued that the question whether time was of the essence of the contract for sale is also a matter that arose for determination, having regard to the facts of the case in hand. It was thus argued that the court below ought not to have held that the suit is barred by limitation even if it was a case where Section 15 of the Limitation Act did not come to the aid of the plaintiff and the plea in that regard in the plaint would have been erroneous in law.

4. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent is fundamentally that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted on any ground and interference in appeal would not be made unless the order of the trial court is wrong either in law or on facts. It was argued that the court below cannot be found fault with for having held that Section 15 does not come to the aid of the plaintiff and that the time for performance having been fixed, the period of limitation is three years from such date, going by Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Reference was made to the decisions of this Court in Haneefa v. United Finance Corporation [2006 (1) KLT 416] and Food Corporation of India v. C.Mohammed Kunhi [2009 (3) KHC 164(DB)] to buttress the submissions on Section 15(1) of the Limitation Act. The learned senior counsel further argued that the plaintiff had po