IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 400/1999 Reserved on:12.5.2009 Decided on:5.6. 2009 Prem Chand. …Appellant. Versus Sunder Ram alias Sunder Singh. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.8.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in civil appeal No.54/1 of 1992. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The case of the plaintiff is that respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’ for convenience sake) is co- owner to the extent of ½ share in the landed property situated in Khasra No.144 measuring 18-5 bighas situated in village Bangran. He had 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 entered agreement on 2.11.1982 for selling his land to the extent of 3 bighas out of Khasra No. 144 for a consideration of Rs. 6,400/-. This agreement was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib. A part payment of Rs. 5,600/- was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff on different dates. The possession of the property in dispute was delivered on the spot in the month of June, 1977. It was also agreed that sale deed would be registered within 60 days from the date of decision of the civil suit of the Bank qua the property in dispute. The civil suit was decided and thereafter the defendant was approached by the plaintiff to execute the sale deed. The defendant failed to do so. The suit was contested by the defendant. The recitals of the agreement were disputed and it was stated that the agreement in question has been got executed from the defendant by the plaintiff by taking undue advantage of his illiteracy. He has denied the receipt of any payment from the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the suit on 19.10.1993. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur. He dismissed the appeal on 7.8.1999. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: 1.“Whether decision of learned District Judge in the impugned judgment, decree on the point of limitation has vitiated for non- consideration of the plea in written statement that the sale deed on the basis of agreement dated 2.11.1982, Ex.PW-1/A only could be executed after the payment of mortgaged money of the Bank and after getting the land redeemed from the Bank?” Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not sustainable. He then argued that the learned courts below have come to a wrong conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. 3 Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The original agreement to sell was entered into between the parties on 2.11.1982 vide Ex.PW-1/A. A civil suit for recovery of the loan amount was pending against the defendant. A condition was stipulated in the agreement that the defendant shall execute a regular sale deed within 60 days from the date of decision of the civil suit. The civil suit stood decided, as observed hereinabove. However, the plaintiff has not led any evidence when the civil suit was decided. It was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the exact date when the civil suit was decided. It was only after the decision of the civil suit that the sale deed was to be executed as per Ex.PW-1/A. The plaintiff has only issued notice Ex.PW-1/C on 24.3.1992 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. Though it is mentioned in the notice Ex.PW-1/C that the civil suit stood decided, however, no date was mentioned in this notice as well. The cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff on 2.11.1982 and the suit filed after 9½ years was not maintainable. The courts below have recorded correct finding that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 5.6. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*