The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repeal of the Ceiling Act did not revive the plaintiff's right to get the sale-deed executed, and no case for grant of decree in favor of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract was made out.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. Initially the petitioner had filed this Misc. Civil Case under Order XLV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') read with Article 133(1)(a) & (b) and Article 134A of the Constitution of India and under Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter XXI of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 seeking a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution in accordance with Form No. 31. However, on a preliminary objection being raised by the respondents, the petitioner prayed for amendment of the prayer made in the MCC and the said prayer to amend was allowed. Thereafter as amended the present MCC is treated and heard as a petition under Order XLV Rule 2 of the CPC read with Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter XXI of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 with a prayer to grant a certificate in terms of Rule 3 and Rule 7 of Order XLV of the CPC on the substantial questions of law stated in the memo of petition.

2. According to the petitioner following two substantial questions of law of general importance need to be decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court:

(1) The interpretation of Section 3 (1) (b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

(2) Omission to consider the effect of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, by which the suit cannot said to be time-barred.

3. Briefly stated the petitioner's second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 11-5-2009 passed in Second Appeal No. 154/1991. The operative paragraphs of the said judgment reads thus:

On 28-1-1992, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the Courts below were in error in holding that plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation ?

(ii) Whether the Courts below were legally in error in holding that the contract had become impossible under Sections 32 and 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 ?

(iii) Whether Government order of exemption (Exh. D-4) is not binding on the plaintiff and does not affect his rights to claim specific performance ?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled in any case in the alternative to a decree for damages or return of money paid to defendant ?

Thereafter on 8-7-2008, two more additional substantial questions of law have been framed which are as under:

(i) Whether the Repeal Act has any retrospective effect to render the judgment and decree of the Courts below ineffective ?

(ii) Whether after Repeal Act has come into force, the respondents could take the defence of Section 32 read with Section 56 of the Contract Act to avoid specific performance of the contract ?

Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the finding recorded by the Courts below to hold the plaintiff's suit to be barred by limitation is not correct. According to him the plaintiff was denied the execution of the sale-deed by the defendants vide their reply dated 18-6-1986 of the notice issued by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, he argued that in view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiffs suit was required to be treated by the Courts below to be within limitation. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Basantilal Jagannath Mahajan v. Rameshwar Prasad Nanoolal Mahajan 1994 MPLJ 113. His next contention was that the defendants took a plea of impossibility of performance of the contract in view of Sections 32 and 56 of the Contract Act. This plea according to him is not available to the defendants in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short 'the Repeal Act') which came into force in the State of M.P. on 17-2-2000. He argued that in view of the Repeal Act the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below have become ineffective and in view of this subsequent development the plaintiff right to get the decree for specific performance of the contract has been revived