Venkatanatha Chary Vs.
Nalla Raji Reddy  INSC 449 (27 February 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1322 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25542
of 2007) Venkatanatha Chary ...Appellant(s) Versus Nalla Raji Reddy
...Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated
25th January, 1992. In terms of the agreement, the parties were required to
perform their respective obligations by 31st March, 1992. By an order dated 3rd
April, 2007, the trial Court, after taking note of the fact that the suit could
have been filed within a period of three years from 31st March, 1992, when the
cause of action is said to have accrued to the plaintiff but the suit was filed
in the year 2006 held that the same is barred by limitation and accordingly
rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The High Court allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and set aside the
order of the trial Court only on the ground that the same was passed without
requiring the defendant to file written statement.
We have been taken
through the plaint. A perusal thereof makes it clear that the cause of action
for filing the suit for specific performance accrued to the plaintiff on
...2/- -2- 31st March, 1992. The limitation for filing such suit is three
years. Therefore, the plaintiff could have filed the suit by 31st March, 1995.
However, the fact of the matter is that the suit was filed in the year 2006
i.e. after 11 years of the expiry of the period of limitation. In this view of
the matter, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground
of limitation and the High Court committed an error in reversing the order of
the trial Court.
appeal is allowed, impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the one
passed by the trial Court is restored.
Pages: 1 2 3