The court emphasized that a Trial Court must consider the entire plaint and not selectively read it when determining the limitation period for specific performance claims.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Appeal Suit was found to be maintainable by an order dated 11.09.2024 and the Registry was accordingly directed to number the present Appeal Suit.

2. The question before the Court now is whether the prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing upon issuing notice to the defendants can be allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued for an order of remand.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff before the Trial Court who filed a Suit for specific performance of contract based on an Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2007. According to a sequence of events presented by counsel appearing for the appellant, the Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2007 was executed between the appellant and the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 for sale of the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 60,00,111/- out of which the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The appellant was to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registration of the Sale Deed. The appellant paid a total sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and expressed its readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of as agreed by the parties.

4. Two Suits were filed by third parties in 2007 against the respondent Nos. 1-3 for recovery of money. The appellant was also arrayed as a party in the said Suits. The third parties alleged that the suit schedule properties had been mortgaged to them. Although the appellant was put to notice of the two Suits, the respondent No. 1-3 assured the appellant that they will settle the disputes and execute the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant. The appellant believed in this representation. The third parties and the respondent Nos. 1-3 settled the above Suits by way of a Lok Adalat Award dated 18.08.2010. The third parties thereafter filed Securitization Appeal involving the suit schedule property. The respondent No. 1-3 again requested the appellant to wait for the outcome of the Securitization Appeal and promised to receive the balance sale consideration and execute Sale Deed in favour of the appellant. The appellant again believed in this representation and waited for the outcome of the Securitization Appeal. In October, 2023 the appellant came to know upon verifying the Encumbrance Certificate that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had executed transactions partitioning the suit schedule property and alienating a part thereof in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The appellant immediately issued a legal notice on 31.10.2023 calling upon the respondents to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered Sale Deed. The respondents did not respond to the legal notice despite receiving the same. The appellant filed the Suit in June, 2024 seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2007 and refund of money in the alternative. The impugned order was passed on 25.06.2024 rejecting the Suit on the ground that the Suit is barred by limitation.

5. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff is that the impugned order is liable to be rejected on several grounds including that the Trial Court selectively read parts of the plaint for coming to the conclusion that the appellant had knowledge of the litigation involving the suit schedule property since the appellant was made a party in the said Suits. Counsel relies on Article 54 of The Limitation Act, 1963 (the 1963 Act) in support of the relevant timelines for filing a Suit for specific performance.

6. It is settled law that a Court must only look at the statements made in the plaint for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In the present case, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the appellant's Suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground of limitation.

7. Article 54 of The Limitation Act, 1963 pr