M. HANNA N and 2:others vs Dr. ANWARUL HASSAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the Sindh High Court rejecting the petitioners' plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for specific performance of contract. The core legal question was whether the suit for specific performance was barred by time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action accrued when the respondents forcibly entered the property and the suit filed in 1997—long after the expiration of the three-year period prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908—was rightly rejected as time-barred. The court laid down that a suit for specific performance must be instituted within the strict limitation period of three years from the date when the cause of action accrues, and concurrent findings on limitation by the lower courts warrant no interference.
- Whether a suit for specific performance of contract is barred by time if filed beyond three years from the accrual of the cause of action under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 113, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition for leave to appeal are that respondent No,1 had entered into an agreement of sale of a house situated in Nazimabad No,3, Karachi, with petitioner. Earnest money to the tune of Rs,50,000 was also paid. Thereafter, in 1993 respondent No,1 malafidely inducted respondent No,2 into the property. He forcibly took the possession of a portion of the said . House. Petitioners sought their remedies before almost every Court except appropriate forum. Ultimately, in 1997 a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the petitioners. Respondents raised preliminary objection by means of an application under Order VII, Rule-11, C.P.C. On the ground that suit was barred by time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. A learned Judge in chambers of Sindh of High Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint being barred by time. The petitioner filed an appeal, which came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, who vide judgment dated 4-10-2000 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. In the present petition order, dated 4-10-2000 of the Division Bench of Sindh High Court has been impugned.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the file. It is not disputed that an agreement to sell regarding property in dispute was made between parties. Later on respondent No,2 forcibly entered into the property whereupon cause of action accrued to the petitioners for getting agreement enforced. Instant suit was filed in 1997 and according to Article 113 of the Limitation Act suit had to be filed within three years. Appeal was dismissed after hearing both the sides on the question of limitation.
3. We have carefully gone through the judgment impugned and do not find any misapplication of law or non-application of law, which could persuade us to issue process. No case for interference
Cited by 4 cases
- Qadir Bukhsh vs Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan and 2 others 2021 CLC 1650
- Messrs JABL-E-REHMAT TOWERS Versus NAGHAMANA WAJAHAT 2019 CLCN 39
- KHURSHEED ALAM Versus GHULAM NABI 2013 YLR 777
- Haji ABDUL KARIM and 4 others vs Messrs FLORIDA BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD. 2010 PLD Karachi 17