-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1357 OF FIRST APPEAL NO.1357 OF FIRST APPEAL NO.1357 OF 2008 2008 2008 Along with Civil Application No.3584 of 2008. Smt Sharadabai Ganpatrao Vinchurkar, Appellant. Vs Smt Sangita Madhav Bodke & Ors Respondents. Mr Kishore Patil i/b Mr P.N.Joshi for the appellant. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATE : 09/07/2008 DATE : 09/07/2008 DATE : 09/07/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel, holding for Mr.Joshi for the appellant/plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff had filed a Special Civil Suit No.175 of 2007 for a relief of specific performance and by the impugned Judgment and order dated 31.1. 2008 the said suit has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, solely on the ground of limitation. 3. The agreement of sale, which was the foundation in the suit for specific performance was dated 19.4.2000 (Exh.23/P). The defendants had issued a notice through their advocate to the plaintiff on 19.9.2001 and it was sent under a Registered Post Acknowledgement Due. Exh 26/D is the notice and Exh.27/D is the postal acknowledgement. In para 6 of the notice it was clearly -2- stated that the transaction was to be effected by 31.7.2000 and the plaintiff was called upon to complete the transaction before 30.7.2000. By the said notice, the defendants had called upon the plaintiff to pay the remaining consideration of Rs.ten lacs and get the sale deed executed. The plaintiff did nothing and as per the notice dated 21.9.2001 the period for execution of the agreement was one month and since there was no step taken by the plaintiff this period expired on 21.10.2001. Thus, the limitation for filing the suit commenced from 21.10.2001 and the suit was filed some time in the year 2006. The trial Court rightly held that Article 54 of the Limitation Act has two limbs and even in the first limb the transaction was to be completed on 31.7.2000. We, therefore, do not find any error of law committed by the trial Court in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was beyond limitation in view of the scheme of Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Appeal fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. As a consequence thereof, the Civil Application does not survive and the same stands disposed off. -3- (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)