In a suit for specific performance, where a definite date for performance is stipulated in the agreement, the limitation period of three years under Article 54 of the Limitation Act begins to run from that date, and the running of such time cannot be interrupted by subsequent oral agreements.

REPORTABLE

Order

1. The present first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant, assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2026 passed in Civil Suit No. 51/2025 (NCV No. 53/2025) titled 'Dasrath Singh Shekhawat Vs. Ratan & Ors.', by the learned Additional District Judge, Phagi, District Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the defendant/respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was allowed and the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 08.11.2007. In the plaint, it was averred that a specific date, i.e., 25.12.2008, was fixed for the payment of the remaining sale consideration and execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff admittedly did not pay the balance consideration amount by that date, i.e., 25.12.2008. Although, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 05.12.2008 on the defendants, and despite serving the legal notice, the sale deed was not registered. However, the parties orally agreed that the defendant would have the land measured and thereafter the sale deed would be registered, and that from 2007 to 10.12.2025, the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract, therefore, after serving a second legal notice dated 25.11.2025. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff in December 2025, praying for a decree of specific performance of the contract dated 08.11.2007.

3. Upon service of notice, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and prayed for rejection of the plaint as being barred by the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the application, it was stated that as per the averments of the plaint, the agreement dated 08.11.2007 specified a date for specific performance, i.e., 25.11.2008, and further, as per the averments of the plaint, the first legal notice was issued on 05.12.2008, whereas the suit has been filed after a delay of around 17 years from the date fixed for specific performance, i.e., 25.12.2008, the present suit is barred by limitation.

4. The said application was contested by the plaintiff by filing a reply, wherein it was contended that after the issuance of the first notice dated 05.12.2008, it was orally agreed between the parties that the defendant would get the land partitioned and measured and thereafter get the sale deed registered; therefore, the period of limitation would be deemed to be extended. He accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the said application.

5. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties on the said application, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the defendant/respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and rejected the plaint as being barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present first appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the averments of the plaint, it is nowhere established that the plaint is barred by any law. He further submits that after the issuance of the first notice, it was orally agreed between the parties that the defendant would get the property partitioned and measured and thereafter get the sale deed executed; thus, the time period would be deemed to have been extended. H