Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting defendants respondents contended that none of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants can be Patna High Court SA No.33 of 2007 dt.11-09-2012 12 termed to be a substantial question of law. Both the courts below have neither dissected the facts pleaded in the plaint nor read the plaint in part. According to the learned counsel all the facts were pleaded by the plaintiffs and in support of the facts pleaded the plaintiffs filed the relevant documents and decisions and even without notice to the defendants at the time of admission of the plaint the trial court recorded the finding that the suit is barred by law of limitation and there is no cause of action for specific performance of contract. According to the learned counsel in the terms and conditions of the compromise decree it was specifically mentioned that the cost of registration of the compromise decree if and when deemed necessary will be born by the defendants but both the parties shall be bound to sign applications and papers for taking out permission and to do all acts and expenditures necessary for securing an early registration thereof and on their failure to do so the plaintiffs shall be liable to damage and compensation. When for a considerable period no steps were taken by the present plaintiffs for getting the compromise decree registered the present defendants filed eviction suit under the BBC Act which was decreed up to the Apex Court. Even after the judgment of the Apex Court the plaintiffs did not vacate the suit premises, therefore, the respondents filed contempt application before the Apex Court and then on the direction of the Apex Court the execution case Patna High Court SA No.33 of 2007 dt.11-09-2012 13 was allowed and delivery of possession has been effected. The learned counsel submitted that in the eviction suit giving rise to Second Appeal No. 102 of 2003 the High Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment considering these very facts and circumstances disclosed in the plaint held that the lessee (present appellants) did not take steps for registration of the compromise decree and purposely avoided the same to save the cost of registration and stamp duty. This Court also observed that the lessee have treated or misused the compromise decree as a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating the registration and ultimately dismissed the second appeal. This decision is reported in 2005 (3) PLJR 623. Now therefore, the same question cannot be considered here in the present suit. When it has already been held that the present plaintiffs did not take steps for registration the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Since the compromise decree in view of the terms and conditions as quoted above is of the year 1980, registration was necessary but for six years the present plaintiffs did not take any steps for getting the same registered because of his intention to save stamp duty. In such circumstances, the present respondents filed eviction suit in the year 1986 clearly mentioning that title did not pass because of non-registration of the compromise decree. Therefore, on the date when the defendants came to know Patna High Court SA No.33 of 2007 dt.11-09-2012 14 about the eviction suit filed by the present respondents the right to sue arose on that day and part 2 of Article 54 of the Limitation Act came into play. The suit has been filed in the year 2006 therefore, admittedly it is time barred. Merely, because the plaintiffs are saying that the cause of action accrued after dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court it cannot be held so in view of the specific provision of the Limitation Act. The bundle of facts stated by the plaintiffs in the present plaint is nothing but out come of skilled Advocate who has drafted the plaint in such a way to over come bar of limitation and the facts disclosed in the plaint requires no fresh decision and no evidence is necessary therefore, both the courts below have rightly held so and in the second appeal the same cannot be interfered.