1 WP No.3685/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3685 of 2011 Santosh Gopinath Patil and ors. ... Petitioners versus Savitri B. Singh ... Respondent ... Ms.Neelam P. Nikale i/b Vijay Gharat for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 28th June 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the trial court dismissing the application of the petitioners (defendants) for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was barred by limitation and therefore, plaint would to have been rejected. The suit was for specific performance. No time for performance was fixed under the contract. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing of a suit for specific performance, where no date for performance is fixed, is three years from the date the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused. Counsel for 2 WP No.3685/11 the petitioners fairly conceded that there was nothing on record to show that there was refusal of performance. If so, the suit prima facie is not barred by limitation. 3. Counsel then submitted that the original agreement was made with the petitioner’s father and not by the petitioner. Hence, the suit could not be filed against the petitioners. That is the matter that would be required to be decided at trial and plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on that ground. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G.KARNIK, J)