1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.332 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1435 OF 2009 Narayan Jayaram Jadhav. ..Appellant. Vs. Keshav Krishnaji Purandare and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A. Y. Sakhare, Sr.Counsel with Mr. Y. Sakhare i/by YKS Legal for the Appellant. Miss. Manjiri Parasnis i/by G.S.Godbole for the Respondents 2 and 4. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 9th March, 2010 PC : 1 This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two lower courts dismissing his suit for specific performance. Suit for specific performance was in respect of an agreement of sale dated 4.10.1972. Out of the agreed consideration, earnest amount of Rs.26637/- 2 was paid at the time of execution of the agreement and the balance amount of Rs.19332/- was payable on or before 11.11.1972. Agreement contemplated that the transaction was to be completed on payment of balance amount of Rs.19332/-. The plaintiff issued a notice for specific performance on 29.1.1973 but thereafter, did not take any steps to file a suit for specific performance. He then issued second notice for specific performance on 3.2.2001 and filed a civil suit in 2002. On the aforesaid facts, it is clear that this is a case where agreement itself has stipulated the time period for completion of transaction and that the transaction was to be completed till 11.11.1972. In such circumstances, suit filed in 2002 has been declared to be barred by law of limitation and has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 2 Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and ors. Vs. Anton Elis Farel and others reported in (2006) 3 3 S.C.C. 634. That was not a case covered by first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Supreme Court held that the question of limitation was required to be decided by leading evidence. Ratio of that case is not applicable to the present case as the time for performance of contract is mentioned in the agreement. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is summarily rejected. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1435 OF 2009 1 As the second appeal is summarily rejected, this application does not survive and the same is also rejected. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)