Regular Second Appeal No. 695 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 695 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 07, 2009 Surinder Pal ......... Appellant versus Smt. Rati Kaur and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.03.1995 was dismissed on the ground that it is beyond the period of limitation. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell in respect of measuring 5 Kanals 15 Marlas. Rs.1,10,000/- was paid as earnest money out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.04.1995. It has been found that the present suit has been filed on 21.05.1998 i.e., beyond the period of three years from the date of cause of action rising to the plaintiffs on 30.04.1995. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised an argument that Civil Suit No. 309 of 1995 was filed by Dhannu against defendant No.1. The said suit was dismissed on 8.5.1998 and thereafter the suit for specific Regular Second Appeal No. 695 of 2009 [2] performance was filed. Therefore, the finding that the suit is barred by limitation is not sustainable. The said argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. Even if another suit was pending in respect of the suit land that does not preclude the plaintiffs from enforcing their right to seek specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 25.3.1995. Having failed to seek specific performance of the agreement to sell within the period of limitation, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is beyond the period of limitation. Such finding has been rightly recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below which may give rise to any substantial question of law for determination by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. September 07, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE