1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2006 Damu N. Somani ........Appellant versus Sudan R. Karle ........ Respondent. Mr. R.S. Datar adv. for the Appellant Mr. Nitin Dhumal adv. for the respondent CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 05th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Datar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhumal for respondent. 2. The appellant is original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent's suit for specific performance was partly decreed. Specific performance was refused however, decree for refund of earnest money was passed. The respondent/plaintiff challenged the trial court's decree in the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in toto. 3. Mr. Datar learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was not filed within the period of limitation, this trial court therefore rightly refused specific performance. He further 2 submitted that contrary finding of the appellate court in this regard is not correct. 4. The agreement is dated 15-12-1982. The amount of total consideration was Rs. 3500/-. The amount of Rs. 2000/- was paid towards earnest amount and the amount of Rs. 1500/-was to be paid till 31-3-1983. Since the suit land was purchased under tenancy act, the permission of competent authority was required to be obtained and the appellant/defendant undertook to obtain this permission. However, he did not obtain this permission. On 23-2-1985 at the request of the appellant/defendant the balance amount of Rs. 1500/- was paid by the respondent/plaintiff, on the representation of the defendant/defendant that after payment of this money, he will obtain required permission from the competent authority. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit on 30-12-1989 as he got knowledge that the appellant/defendant is trying to dispose of the suit land to other person. No time limit is given in the agreement of sale to obtain permission from the competent authority. It is not disputed that such permission was not obtained prior to filing of the suit by the appellant/defendant. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff came to be filed on apprehension that the appellant may sell the suit property to other persons inspite of prior agreement of sale. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the trial court committed error in holding that suit is not within limitation, which error came to be corrected by the lower appellate court, and in 3 my view, rightly. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Second Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)