1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89/2010 (Shri Kiran Gangadhar Senad vrs. New Viraj Husing Agency Builders and Developers ) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri A.S.Jaiswal, counsel for appellants, Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, counsel for respondent ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 18th JANUARY, 2011. Heard Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Civil Revision Application challenges the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. (Exh.29), filed by the defendant no.1. 3. The objection in the application was that the limitation prescribed for filing the suit for 2 specific performance of contract is governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. 4. In para 18 of the plaint regarding the cause of action for filing the suit, it has been stated that the cause of action arose on 21.3.2005 when the plaintiff called upon the defendant by issuing legal notice and since then it is continuous. According to Shri Jaiswal, the date of 21.3.2005 cannot be a date for giving rise to a cause of action. This cannot be appreciated at this stage. The question whether it is the date of 21.3.2005 giving rise to a cause of action is the question which is required to be decided in the suit and the suit cannot be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C. What is required to be seen from the reading of the plaint is that, whether the suit filed is within limitation or not. The suit has been filed on 5.3.2008 and in para 18, the cause of action shown is 21.3.2005. The same is, therefore, within three 3 years as disclosed in the plaint. However, the question whether the cause of action really arose on 21.3.2005 or on any earlier date or on any subsequent date cannot be gone into at this stage. The trial Curt was, therefore, right in holding that this is a mixed question of law and fact, which is required to be decided after adducing the evidence by the parties. Hence, no fault can be found with the order passed by the trial court. 5. In view of above, the civil revision application is dismissed. It is made clear that any observations made either by this Court or by the trial Court on merits of the cause of action or on the question of limitation shall not come in the way while deciding the matter by the trial Court on merits. 6. The suit is expedited at the instance of both the parties. JUDGE Rvjalit