Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 03.05.2014 for land bearing Survey No.914/2/3 at Mouje Vatva Gaam, Ahmedabad. The total sale consideration of Rs. 9,75,000/- was paid, and possession was handed over on 06.05.2014. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed would be executed after partition of the unpartitioned land and clearance of title. Without informing the plaintiff, the defendant executed two sale deeds in favour of third parties on 04.11.2015. The plaintiff claimed he discovered these sales only on 17.01.2024 upon searching title records, and filed the suit on 20.02.2024. The trial court suo-moto rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit ex-facie time-barred as the agreement was from 2014. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 runs from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from the date of notice of refusal. Since the plaint averred knowledge of breach on 17.01.2024, the suit was within limitation. The court set aside the rejection order and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Suo-moto rejection - The trial court rejected the plaint suo-moto holding the suit ex-facie time-barred. The High Court held that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is permissible only when the plaint on its face discloses no cause of action or is clearly barred by law. The court must consider only the plaint averments and documents annexed. (Paras 1, 5-7) B) Limitation - Specific Performance - Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Date of knowledge of breach - The suit for specific performance was filed in 2024 based on an agreement to sell dated 03.05.2014. The plaintiff alleged that he came to know of the defendant's sale to third parties only on 17.01.2024. The High Court held that limitation under Article 54 runs from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from the date of notice of refusal. Since the plaint averred knowledge on 17.01.2024, the suit filed on 20.02.2024 was within limitation. The trial court erred in rejecting the plaint as ex-facie time-barred. (Paras 8-10) C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary relief - The court noted that the plaintiff had paid full consideration and was put in possession, making the agreement an agreement coupled with interest. The suit for specific performance cannot be dismissed at the threshold on limitation without trial. (Paras 2.2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance filed in 2024 based on an agreement to sell executed in 2014 is ex-facie barred by limitation, warranting rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 23.03.2026 passed below Exhibit-1 in Civil Suit No.400 of 2024 by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit on its own merits in accordance with law. The connected civil application also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Limitation for specific performance runs from date of knowledge of breach
- not from date of agreement
- Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC requires ex-facie barred suit
- Suo-moto rejection without notice to plaintiff is permissible but must be based on clear bar
- Article 54 of Limitation Act
- 1963
