Para 12: From a reading of the aforesaid Article 54 of the Limitation Act, it is clear that when the date is fixed for performance, limitation is three years from such date. If no such date is fixed, the period of three years is to be computed from the date when the plaintiff, has notice of refusal.

Para 12: From a reading of the aforesaid Article 54 of the Limitation Act, it is clear that when the date is fixed for performance, limitation is three years from such date. If no such date is fixed, the period of three years is to be computed from the date when the plaintiff, has notice of refusal.

When rejection of plaint is sought in an application filed under O.VII R.11 the Civil Procedure Code, same is to be considered from the facts of each case, looking at the averments made in the plaint, for the purpose of adjudicating such application. As averred in the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that even after payment of the entire consideration amount registration of the document was not made and prolonged on some grounds and ultimately when he had visited the site on 25.05.2017 he had come to know that the same land was sold to third parties and appellants have refused the performance of the contract. In such event, it is a matter for trial to record correctness or otherwise of such allegation made in the plaint.

In the suits for specific performance falling in the second limb of the Article, period of three years is to be continued from the date when it had come to the notice of the plaintiff that performance is refused by the defendants. For the purpose of the cause of the action and limitation when it is pleaded that when he had visited the site on 25.05.2017 he had come to know that the sale was made in favour of third parties and the appellants have refused to execute the sale deed in which event same is a case for adjudication after trial but not a case for rejection of plaint under O.VII R. 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Para 13: Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Prabhakar (supra). In the above said case, this court held that, even where no limitation period is prescribed by the statute, courts apply doctrine of delay/laches/acquiescence and non-suit litigants who approach court belatedly without justifiable explanation. Delay and laches are to be examined with reference to the facts of each case and the said judgment is not helpful to support the case of the appellant inasmuch as this matter arises out of an application filed under O.VII R. 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment in the case of T.Arivandam (supra) pertains to eviction from tenanted premises which was contested by the tenant.

admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *