Summary
The Supreme Court upheld refusal to reject a specific-performance plaint concerning an agreement twenty-five years earlier. No performance date was fixed and the plaintiff pleaded notice of refusal only in 2017. On those averments the limitation bar was not apparent; correctness of the claimed refusal date required trial. The Court left limitation and all other merits open for independent adjudication.
Issues
- Whether the plaint disclosed a limitation bar warranting rejection without trial.
- How Article 54 applied where no date for performance was fixed.
Provisions considered
- Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963Where no performance date is fixed, the three-year period runs from notice of refusal; the pleaded date required evidentiary determination here. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Only plaint averments governed the threshold application; no limitation bar was apparent from them in this case. (¶¶ 11, 12, 15, 16)
Held
- A limitation bar can support rejection, but the application must be determined from the plaint rather than a merits assessment of competing allegations. Article 54 distinguishes a fixed performance date from notice of refusal where none is fixed. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The pleaded 2017 discovery of a third-party sale and refusal to execute required trial to test its correctness. The long interval or alleged laches did not, on this plaint, establish the statutory bar at the rejection stage. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Dismissal of the defendants’ appeals expressed no opinion on final limitation or merits. The trial court remained free to frame and decide limitation and other issues on evidence and was asked to dispose of the old dispute expeditiously. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeals dismissed; plaint to proceed. Limitation and all merits left open for the trial court; expeditious disposal requested. No costs.