27 February 2009
Supreme Court
Download

VENKATANATHA CHARY Vs NALLA RAJI REDDY

Case number: C.A. No.-001322-001322 / 2009
Diary number: 37292 / 2007
Advocates: ANJANI AIYAGARI Vs LAWYER S KNIT & CO


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE 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.

The 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

- 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.   

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order of the High Court is

set aside and the one passed by the trial Court is restored.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, February 27, 2009.