1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.364 OF 2009 K.J.Associates & Ors., .. Applicants V/s. M/s.Venus Builders & Ors., .. Respondents Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for Applicants. CORAM: R.S.MOHITE, J. DATED: 11th AUGUST, 2009. P.C.: 1. This Revision Application is filed by the Original Defendant No.6, impugning Judgment below Ex.38 in Special Civil Suit No.1629 of 2007. The said suit is filed for the Specific Performance of agreement executed between 10 th October, 1992 to 23 rd October, 1992. It is prayed that the Appellate Court has wrongly decided the question of limitation as raised in their application under Order 7 Rule 11. It is admitted that in the agreement of which specific Performance is sought that no time period was given for completion of transaction. The question of limitation, therefore, turns upon the question as to when the Plaintiff Srj 2 acquired knowledge of refusal of performance. It appears that in this regard, the Defendants first placed reliance upon a letter dated 26 th September, 2002. The Trial Court has observed that this letter does not indicate clear refusal. Then they relied upon the Plaintiff s letter dated 2 nd December, 2002. Here also, the question about the knowledge of refusal is a matter of interference. The Court has, therefore, rightly held that the issue of limitation as raised is a mixed question of fact and law and that evidence can be led by both the parties in this regard. 2. The other point relates to bar under Section 42, but the Advocate for Applicant is unable to point out as to how this matter should be barred by section 42. In the result, C.R.A. is dismissed. 3. It is further made clear that the question of limitation will be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) Srj