-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2005 Sou. Shakambari Dattatraya Joshi : Appellant v/s Sou. Suman Jagannath Shukla : Respondent Mr. T.D. Deshmukh Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. Shah Advocate for Respondent Coram : Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota, J. Date : 9.4.2009 P.C. . This Second appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment and decree dt. 30.7.2004 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Solapur in Regular Civil Appeal no. 164 of 2002 arising out of judgment, decree and order dt. 22.2.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, in Regular Civil Suit no. 87 of 2001. Appellant is original plaintiff and the respondent original defendant. Regular Civil Suit no. 87/2001 filed by the appellant was for specific performance of the agreement dt. 18.10.1973 for purchase of house property. When the respondent did not complete the same by execution of the sale deed the appellant sent notice dt. 24.7.1979 calling upon him to do so. This notice was not responded by the respondent. Then after the interval of 11 years the appellant sent second notice dt. 1.9.1990. When the second notice -2- was also not complied with the appellant filed regular civil suit no. 87/2001 on 6.1.2001 wherein the appellant sought specific performance of the agreement dt. 18.10.1973 after the lapse of 22 years from the date of the agreement. Both the courts below have held that the suit is expressly barred by law of limitation. Perusal of the date of the agreement of sale, the two notices demanding completion of sale and the date of filing of the suit is sufficient to hold that the suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Therefore there can be no interference with finding of the impugned order. . Pursuant to the agreement of sale dt. 18.10.1973 the appellant was put in possession of the house property, therefore the respondent filed regular civil suit no. 14/2005 for possession of house property from the appellant. That suit came to be dismissed and the respondent has preferred first appeal. In these circumstances it is clarified that dismissal of the second appeal will not come in the way of the appellant agitating his right in the first appeal preferred by the respondent. With this clarification second appeal stands dismissed. (Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota, J)