TARLOK SINGH versus VIJAY KUMAR SABHARWAL

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 25-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

TARLOK SINGH 
A 
),', 
v. 
VUAYKUMARSABHARWAL 
MARCH 25, 199.6 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAiK, JJ.] 
B 
1 Limitation Act, 1963 : ' 
Article 54--7-Suit for specific peifom1ancec-Limitatiott-:lnitially suit for 
perpetual injunction instintted-Later, application under Order .. 6 Rule 17 
CFC for amendment of the plaint filed to amend the suit as one for specific · C 
peifomzance-Arjreement of sale stipulating that sale deed would be executed 
within 15" days of vacation of injunction by Court-Injunction suit disposed 
. of on 223.1986-Amendment application allowed on 218.89-Heltf, the suit 
for specific performance_. in fact was claimed by way of amendpzent-The 
, 
crncial date would be the date on which the amendmeni was ordered by which D 
date, admittedly, the suit is barred by limitation. 
, 
' 
'\;I 
CIYfL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.94 of the Punjab 8i. Haryana . E 
High CiJ11rt in R.S:A. Nq. 2485 of 1993. 
, 
. . 
U .R. Lalit, Mahabir Singh and Mridul Agga..WOI for the Appellants. 
Prem Ma_Ihotra for the Respo.ndents. 
· The folloWing Order ofthe Court ~as.delivered : 
F 
. ' 
Leave granted. 
We have heard· learned counsel on both sides. 
Shorn of all the details regarding diverse litigations that went on · G 
between Jte parties, suffice it to state that the appellant is the o\Vner of 
the lands. The respondent is successor'in-interest. The respondent's father 
admittedly had an agreement of sale ·on December· 21, 1984 executed by 
the 'appellant to alienate the lands. In view of the pending proceedings time 
for conveyance was further extended by agreem~nt ·dated August i8, 1984 H 
879 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A stipulating that the appellant shall be required to execute the sale deed 
within 15 days from the date of the order vacating the injunction granted 
in a suit. We are informed that the suit was initially dismissed and there-
after a review application was also dismissed as withdrawn on March 22, 
1986. Initially, the respondent had instituted the suit on December 23, 1987 
B 
c 
D 
for perpetual injunction. The application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC 
came to be filed for converting the suit into one for specific performance 
of agreement dated August 18, 1984. That application was filed on July 17, 
1989. By order dated August 25, 1989, the amendment was allowed. The 
appellant carried the matter in revision to the High Court in C.R. No. 
2724/89. The High Court by order dated November 29, 1989 had held thus: 
"!do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by 
the trial Judge, However, the vendor will be at liberty to take a 
specific plea in the written statement which he will file pursuant 
to the amended plaint that the suit is beyond limitation and that 
the suit was even beyond·limitation on the date when the applica-
tion for amendment was filed. After the amended written state-
ment is filed the trial Judge will frame proper issues and dispose 
of the same according to law." 
In view of the above directions, the appellant has pleaded that the 
E suit was barred by limitation. The t.rial Court negatived it and decreed the 
suit. On appeal, it was confirmed. Second appeal No. RSA No. 2485/93 by 
order dated July 6, 1994, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed it. 
Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
The only question is : whether the suit is barred by limitation? 
F 
Pursuant to the agreement dated December 21, 1984, time was extended 
for specific performance which started running after 15 days from the date 
the stay was vacated. It is now admitted position that review petition was 
dismissed on March 22, 1986. Thus, limitation began to run on April 6, 
1986. The question, therefore, is : whether the suit for specific performance 
G is within the limitation? Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 
. 21 of 1963 reads thus : 
"For specific performance of a contract the period of limitation is 
3 years. The limitation begins to run from the date fixed for the 
performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has 
· H 
notice that performance is refused." 
.., 
TARLOKSINGHv. V.K.SABHARWAL 
881 
Shri Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent, contended A· 
,, 
. 
' 
.... 
that since the respondent had refused performance the suit must be 
deemed to have been filed ori. December 23, 198.7 and, therefore, when the 
amendment was allowed, it 'would relate bac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.