1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 1166 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2009 Prashant Jagannathrao Dahake & Ano. Vs. Sushmatai wd/o Damodarrao Dhamande & Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. C. Madhkholkar & S.S. Ghate Adv for appellant. Mr. V. M. Deshpande Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 7 th APRIL , 2010. Heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents. This review application has been preferred against the order passed by this Court on 06.07.2009 whereby the First Appeal preferred by original plaintiffs came to be dismissed in limine. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that 2 this Court went wrong in holding that suit was apparently barred by limitation since it was filed beyond limitation inasmuch as notice for seeking specific performance was itself beyond limitation as prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel submits that the observation of the learned Judge passing the said order was not correct inasmuch as agreement of sale does not stipulate any date for performance. He submits that where such a date is not stipulated the suit is required to be filed within 3 years from the date of refusal on the part of the person who is required to file the suit. He submits that in the instant case no date is fixed for its performance and further a suit has been filed by the plaintiff actually from the date of refusal within three years. I am taken through the agreement of sale. Agreement of sale states that sale deed is required to be executed within 8 days after obtaining permission from the concerned authority to execute the sale deed. Obviously there is no date fixed for performance, therefore, limitation begins to run 3 naturally from the date of refusal. The notice was issued on 28.12.2006. The reply to this notice was sent by the defendant on 12.01.2007. Suit is filed on 05.02.2007. The suit is therefore very much within limitation. Learned Judge did not take into consideration this aspect. In the circumstances it appears that there is a mistake apparent on the face of record and therefore order passed by the Court is set aside. It is accordingly set aside. Admit the appeal. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 17.06.2010. Interim stay to the execution of the decree till reply is filed. JUDGE svk 4