SURINDER PAL Vs. SURINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal. There can be no doubt that civil suit No.209 of 2009 dated 15th October, 2009 was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for suits for possession by way of specific performance of contract of an agreement to sell, which is three years. The sale agreement was executed between the parties on 2 nd May, 2006 with the respect to the corpus. The suit was instituted 53 days beyond limitation and was time-barred.

(2.) It is not disputed that the stipulated date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 25th May, 2006 in the sale agreement. One day earlier, i.e., on 24th May, 2006, parties mutually agreed to extend the date of execution of the sale deed to 25th August, 2006 on payment of additional amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The deal fell through. The action was brought beyond limitation. Both the Courts below have held that the suit is barred by limitation. Indeed, there was no other possible thing to do by a court of law.

(3.) Mr Daygeesh Bhatti appearing for the appellant has put forth a startling but interesting argument to save the suit contending that Order 7 Rule 6 CPC permits the plaintiff exemption from limitation where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation and, therefore, both the Courts fell in error in dismissing the suit as time barred. In order to understand the contention advanced on the strength of the provision cited, Order 7 rule 6 CPC is reproduced : -