The suit for specific performance was rightly dismissed as time-barred, emphasizing the necessity of timely action in contract performance as per Limitation Act provisions.

Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J

1. This is plaintiff's First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2016 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.119-A/2011, whereby plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that the plaintiff / appellant instituted a suit for specific performance by submitting, inter alia, that he entered into an agreement dated 05.09.2006 (Ex.P-1) with defendant No.1 to purchase the land bearing Khasra Nos.138/1 & 138/4, area 0.003 and 0.170 hectares total 12498 sq. ft. situated at village Dangniya, P.H. No. 104 R.I. Division, Raipur (for short, 'the suit land'), owned and possessed by defendant No.1 (as described in red colour enclosed with the plaint), at the rate of Rs.321/- per sq. ft. and has paid Rs.6,00,000/- as earnest money and as per the said agreement, sale-deed would be executed within three months from the date of agreement. According to the plaintiff, pursuant to agreement dated 05.09.2006, he was entitled to enquire into ownership of defendant No.1 and accordingly on 08.09.2006, a paper publication (Ex.P-2) was made inviting objections within 15 days from the date of publication with respect to suit land. In pursuance thereof, an objection was received by the appellant / plaintiff on 21.09.2006 (Ex.P-3) from one “Lokmanya Sahkari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit” (for short, 'the Society') stating that they are the owner and possession holder of the suit land since 1991 and litigation with respect to the suit land is pending before this Court. It is further pleaded that the said fact has been brought to the knowledge of defendant No.1 who, in turn, informed the plaintiff that the said litigation is unnecessary and baseless and assured him that he would get the petition decided at the earliest and thereafter sale-deed would be executed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is also pleaded that he was waiting for a period of two months and even after lapse of two months, the defendant No.1 did not inform about the status of the litigation, therefore, a legal notice (Ex.P-4) was sent by him through his Advocate on 27.09.2006 requesting him to get the suit land free from disputes, so that sale-deed could be executed as soon as possible, despite that defendant No.1 did not give any information to him about the actual position. It is further averred that after some time, plaintiff came to know that suit land is freed from all encumbrances, therefore, the defendant No.1 was bound to discharge his duties as per terms and conditions of the agreement, but he did not do so. Thus, the plaintiff has sent one more legal notice (Ex.P-8) on 02.09.2008 requesting him to execute the sale-deed in his favour within seven days, but defendant No.1 has informed him that the dispute has not yet been settled and as soon as dispute is settled, he would execute the sale-deed. It is averred that the plaintiff got the cause of action on 20.09.2011, when the defendant No.1 was trying to alienate the suit land to third party after settlement of the dispute.

Therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the civil suit seeking a direction to the defendant No.1 to execute and register the sale-deed in his favour and possession of suit land be handed over to him and also the defendant No.1 be prohibited from alienating the suit la