A suit for specific performance must be filed within the limitation period; failure to do so results in dismissal.

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 07.02.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.25/2000, whereby the application filed by the respondents defendants (for short 'the defendants) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance, cancellation of sale deed, recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 10 in the year 1998 in which defendants had filed reply and submitted that part of the disputed land was sold to respondent Nos.13 to 16 by different sale deed. So, on 30.05.2000 plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. After that, the plaintiff filed the present suit in which he clearly stated that Nanu grand-father of the plaintiff had purchased the land situated in village Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer in samwat year 2016 in the amount of Rs.400/-. The said land was in the name of Jaikishan, Pitha and Goria. After that, Bhura, Suva and Kanhna had taken Rs.540/- in samwat year 2018 as registry charges of the said land. After purchasing the land, Nanu was having possession over the land in question. Nanu had no issue. Nanu died on 26.12.1996. Before his death, he had executed a Will in the year 1990 in favour of the plaintiff and gave the land to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court had not considered the averments of the plaint in which plaintiff clearly stated that the respondents denied to execute sale deed on 24.03.1998. So, present suit is within the limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court wrongly considered the defence of the defendants by allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. So, order of the trial court be set-aside.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh B. Desai & Others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Others in Civil Appeal No.4766/2001 decided on 11.07.2006 and in the case of Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5343/2012 decided on 20.07.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that as per the averment of the plaint, so-called agreement was executed in the year 1959 and suit was filed in the year i.e. 2000 after the lapse of more than 40 years. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that as per the averment, dispute arose between in the year 1986-1987. Present suit was not filed within 3 years. So, learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, appeal be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

6. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract which was executed in the year 1959(Samwat 2016). It is also an admitted position that the dispute arose between the parties in the year 1986-1987. The plaintiff had filed the present suit in the year 2000 i.e. after the lapse of 40 years for specific performance of the agreement. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court rightly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff being barred by limitation. So, present appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.