Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement
dated 25th January, 1992. In terms of the agreement, the parties were required to
perform their respective obligations by 31st March, 1992. By an order dated 3rd April,
2007, the trial Court, after taking note of the fact that the suit could have been filed
within a period of three years from 31st March, 1992, when the cause of action is said
to have accrued to the plaintiff but the suit was filed in the year 2006 held that the
same is barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the plaint under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court allowed the revision filed
by the petitioner and set aside the order of the trial Court only on the ground that the
same was passed without requiring the defendant to file written statement.
We have been taken through the plaint. A perusal thereof makes it clear
that the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance accrued to the
plaintiff on
...2/-
31st March, 1992. The limitation for filing such suit is three years. Therefore, the
plaintiff could have filed the suit by 31st March, 1995. However, the fact of the matter
is that the suit was filed in the year 2006 i.e. after 11 years of the expiry of the period
of limitation. In this view of the matter, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the
plaint on the ground of limitation and the High Court committed an error in
reversing the order of the trial Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order of the High Court is
set aside and the one passed by the trial Court is restored.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, February 27, 2009.