NASEEM Vs. ALI MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 20.4.2010 wherein the finding of the Trial Judge dated 3.4.2008 had been endorsed; the application of the defendant/respondent under order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been allowed and the plaint had been rejected amounting to a dismissal of the suit.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) In this second appeal, it has been averred that the finding of both the Courts below in rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was an illegality; the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act had not been correctly construed by both the Court below. It is stated that admittedly there was an agreement to sell which had postulated that on 16.11.1998 the parties would perform the agreement and the sale deed would be executed on the said date but thereafter the defendant had extended the time in favour of the plaintiff and this is evident from the plaint filed by the defendant in a suit for possession which he had filed against the plaintiff and in which he himself had made this admission. Attention has been drawn to the certified copy of the said plaint (pages 102 -103 of the paper book). This was a suit for recovery of possession of the aforenoted suit property. On page 3 and again on page 4 of the plaint, it has been stated by the plaintiff (defendant herein) that Ali Mohd had allowed two months further time to execute the sale deed which two months were to be counted from 15.11.1998 thereby extending the period up to 15.1.1999; thereafter another 10 days extension was granted enlarging the period up to 8.2.1999. These admissions even as per the appellant at best extend the period to execute the sale deed up to 8.2.1999. This suit has been filed on 3.6.2002 which is again after the expiry of the period of three years.