2022 SCMR 778
S. 9, First Sched., Arts. 91, 113 & 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 39 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R. 2---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 53 -A---Suit for specific performance of agreement, cancellation of agreement and declaration---Limitation period, commencement of---Adding relief to a suit to primarily save it from the consequence of having been filed beyond the period of limitation---In the present case, the petitioner's (plaintiff's) conduct in filing the first suit, not paying requisite court fee, which resulted in the rejection of the plaint, filing the second suit, withdrawing it, and then filing the third suit was inexplicable---Rejection of plaint in the first suit and the withdrawal of the second suit would not help avoid the period of limitation as made clear from R. 2 of O. XXIII of the C.P.C.---First suit had sought the specific performance of the agreement and the second suit also the cancellation of the sale deed---For both these causes of action the prescribed period of limitation was three years as respectively provided under Art. 113 and Art. 91 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908---Petitioner's third suit had sought the specific performance of the agreement, the cancellation of the sale deed, which was executed when there was no suit pending, and a declaration with regard to the ownership of the land---Third suit was filed after three years and was time-barred with regard to seeking the specific performance of the agreement and for the cancellation of the sale deed---Petitioner had primarily sought the specific performance of the agreement, then the cancellation of the sale deed and had added the declaratory relief to primarily save the third suit from the consequence of having been filed beyond the period of limitation---Linking or combining of S. 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with the petitioner's suit would not benefit him by extending the period of limitation and save the third suit as said section could not be used as a weapon of offence---Third suit filed by the petitioner was belatedly filed---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
0 Comments