The period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract where a date is fixed for performance of the agreement, would be three years from the said date. Where no such date is fixed, limitation would run for three years from the date of refusal of the defending party in the suit.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1019 of 2021 ORDER:-

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.631 of 2020 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 03.12.1994 against the petitioners herein and the 2^nd respondent herein.

2. The contention of the 1^st respondent herein, in the plaint, is that the grandfather of the 2nd petitioner herein along with the 1st petitioner had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 1^st respondent, for sale of the suit property on 03.12.1994. As the 1^st petitioner had acquired title and possession, by way of a Registered Document No.5039/82 and the grandfather of the 2^nd petitioner had acquired right and title by virtue of a preliminary decree in O.S.No.2 of 1974 against which A.S.No.1322 of 1984 was filed, it was agreed that the parties to the agreement would wait till the disposal of A.S.No.1322 of 1984 and thereupon, the 1st respondent would be granted three months time from the date of disposal of A.S.No.1322 of 1984, to pay the remaining sale consideration and obtain a deed a sale from the vendors under the agreement. A.S.No.1322 of 1984 was disposed of on 16.06.2008. Thereafter, a registered notice dated 13.01.2020 was issued to the vendors in the agreement to come forward and receive the remaining sale consideration and execute the sale. This was disputed by way of a reply of legal notice, sent by the father of the 2^nd petitioner. Ultimately, the 1^st respondent filed O.S.No.631 of 2020, for specific performance of the said agreement of sale.

3. After notice, the petitioners herein appeared before the trial Court and filed I.A.No.54 of 2021, for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C.

4. The case of the petitioners in this application was that the time for performance of the agreement commenced from 16.06.2008 and the 1^st respondent was required to pay the balance sale consideration within three months from that day which would expire on 16.09.2008. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, would have a period of three years to file a suit in the event of the petitioners refusing to accept the balance sale consideration or refusing to execute the deed of sale. This period expires on 16.09.2011. The petitioners further contend that since the 1st respondent was also the 19th respondent in A.S.No.1322 of 1984, it must be taken that he had notice of disposal of A.S.No.1322 of 1984 on 16.06.2008 itself. The petitioners had accordingly, filed I.A.No.54 of 2021, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint is barred by limitation.

5. The 2^nd respondent did not choose to contest this application. The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit raising various contentions. The first contention of the 1st respondent was that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and same cannot be decided until the main suit is decided. The 1st respondent further contended that the period of payment of sale consideration does not expire on 16.06.2008 as there was a clause permitting delayed payment on payment of interest @ 18% per annum. The further contention of the 1^st respondent was that the petitioners are taking a contradictory stand by first, contending that the suit agreement is forged and then contending that the suit agreement is barred by limitation and as such, the petitioners cannot press for rejection of the plaint of such contradictory pleading.

6. The trial Court after considering the submissions of both sides held that, the issues raised in the petition require evidence on various counts keeping in view the provision that the clause permitting delayed payment of sale consideration and had dismissed the application on

01.07.2021.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court.

8. Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad and A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, and Sri Prabhunat