COURT OF CHI ^M^r^ ^ i ^iHCII^ K@l 'b!e Shri Diiio Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Asoeilant 'P^^ntsff Resoondents Defendants Smt. Chandrakaii Sai W/o Shri Asam Prakash, aged about 50 years, Resident csf Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, ahsil & Districi Biiaspur (C.G.) Vsrsus Aabid Ali S/o Late Sabadar Ali, Aged 45 vears. 2. Rahamat Aii, S/o Late Sabadar Ali, Aged about 35 years. Nyaj Begum, widow of Late Sabadar Aii, Aged about 60 years. All residents of Mandir Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Tahsii & Dtetrict Bilaspur (C.G.) iecond ADpsa! under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. i-fir&'cs"'? ^hri R' Kumar Tswari, counsei fo'" the appeiiant, IRAL OR! (Passed on this 25 day of August, 2008) Heard on admission. Learned counse! for the appelisnt placed •eilance on S. Brahmanand & Others vs. K. R.. (D) & Others, reported in (10) S.B.R. 289. //?\ .V(2) The appeilant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgmsnt and decree dated 24-04-2008 passed by the 9"' Add'tiona! District Judge, (F.T.C.), Bilaspur in Civil Appea! No.2Q-A/2006 affirming the judgment and decres dated 26-08-2004 psssed by the 3rd Civii Judge Class i, Biiaspur in Civil Suit No.Q4-A/2003 whereby the appsllanVpiaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed as bar'ed by tirnitation. (3) !t is not disputed in this second appeal that agreement for sale of suit land was executsd by Sabadar Aii in favour ofthe appeliant/piaintiff on a -<a, Sasfe 8fi ""§ s -<sr S -2' 11-11-1985. Consideration aareed bet'A'een t'ns ssarties was Rs.2500/. A sum of Rs.500/- was paid at the time of' agrsement. Under the said agreement, a registered saie deed was to be executed c'n 07-11-1986 the remaining consideration was pald by the appeilant/plaintiff. Sabadar Ali died sometirrtes before 07-11-1986. The appelianVplaintiff pieaded that fresh cause of action arose in his favour and time to file a suit for specific performance of contrEict got extended by virtue of notice dated 07-01-1992 given by the appeilant/plaintiff to the legai representatlves of Sabadar Aii i.e.,the respondents/defendants herein. it was also pieaded that a sum of Rs.500/- was recsivsd by the respondents/plaintiffs. No ^Jff^T^' documentary proof to that effect was adducsd. it was also not sham as to on what date did the respondents/defendants receive the said amount from the appellant/p'aintif. Both the-Courts beiow have rejected the above contention and recorded a concurrent flnding that the suit Is arossiy barred bv limifafion. (4) I have perused the impugned judgirsent and decrse as a'so the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The finding that the suit is barred by limitation, recorded by both the Courts bslow is in accordance with !aw. Case iaw clted by issrned counssi for the appeilant/pSaintiff is distinguishable on facts and does not he!p the plalntlff in any manner. |n the presentca.se, undsr the agreement, saie deed v.'s.s to be executed on 07-11-1986. l.n any cs.se, admittsdly, the appellart/plaintiff took no steps for fiiing of su't ti!! 07-01-1992. Notice given by the appe'lant/plaintiff did not extend the time stipuiated by the agreement. No substantiai qyestion of iaw arises for determination in this second appeal which Is accordingly dismissed atthe staae of adrnission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge a:^^" .A^