Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Naginchand Buccha (applicant/defendant) against Vinod Gupta and others (respondents/plaintiffs) challenging the rejection of his application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the trial court. The respondents had filed a suit for specific performance of contract (R.C.S. No.212/2016) claiming to be legal heirs of deceased Ramkalibai Tarachand Gupta, who had entered into an agreement to purchase two plots admeasuring 2100 sq.ft. out of field survey no.7 at Mouza Shegaon, Amravati. The agreement was dated 26/04/1985 and provided for execution of sale deed latest by 30/12/1986, later extended to 31/03/1989. The sale deed was never executed. Ramkalibai died on 13/11/2011. The respondents claimed they learnt about the agreement in 2015 and demanded specific performance. The applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC contending that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law. The applicant filed the present revision. The High Court examined the plaint allegations and found that the date fixed for performance was 31/03/1989. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for specific performance is three years from the date fixed for performance. The suit was filed in 2016, clearly beyond the limitation period. The court held that the suit was barred on the face of it and the trial court erred in not rejecting the plaint. The revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Specific Performance of Contract - Suit Barred on Face of It - The suit for specific performance was filed in 2016 based on an agreement dated 26/04/1985 with extended date for performance up to 31/03/1989. The court held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as the period of three years from the date fixed for performance had expired long before filing. The plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 4-10) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Rejection of Plaint - Limitation - Where the plaint on its face shows that the suit is barred by limitation, the court must reject the plaint. The court found that the suit was instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation and no plausible explanation was offered for the delay. (Paras 8-10) C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Commencement of Limitation - Date Fixed for Performance - The agreement fixed 30/12/1986 as the date for execution of sale deed, later extended to 31/03/1989. Limitation began to run from the extended date. The suit filed in 2016 was beyond three years from that date and thus time-barred. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance of contract is barred on the face of it by limitation.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 09/02/2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in R.C.S. No.212/2016 is set aside. The plaint in R.C.S. No.212/2016 is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Law Points
- Limitation for specific performance of contract
- Article 54 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Suit barred on face of it
- Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC
- Rejection of plaint
