Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Prabha Construction (P) Ltd. And Ors. vs Shan Trilochan Singh And Anr. on 28 February, 1994 cites

Smt. Thakamma Mathew vs M. Azamathulla Khan And Others on 15 December, 1992

(8) Learned counsel for the defendants also raised a preliminary objection that the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs itself is barred by limitation. In this connection.he drew my attention to the notice dated 5the June, 1990 sent by the defendants through their counsel and submitted that in para 7 of this notice it had clearly been stated that since the plaintiffs did not perform their part of the agreement, the said agreement became null and void and stood cancelled and the amount paid by the plaintiffs by way of earnest money stood forfeited on 25.5.90. He submitted that admittedly this notice was received by the plaintiffs on 10.6.90 and a reply to this notice was also sent by the plaintiffs through their counsel on 15.6.90. Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a suit for specific performance of contract had to be Filed within three years of the date fixed for performance and if no such date was fixed where plaintiffs had notice that performance was refused. Accordingly the suit by the plaintiffs could have been filed within three years from 10th June. 1990, but the present suit was filed on 24th July, 1993 at the first instance and finally it was refiled on 7th August, 1993. He. therefore, contended that the suit was clearly barred by limitation in support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sml. Thakamma Mathew VS. M. Azamathulla Khan. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 20 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1