Judgment:
ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 187 of 2001 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. At a later point of time, he filed LA. No. 2110 of 2003 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to permit the amendment of the plaint for claiming the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The trial Court allowed the LA. through order, dated 11-2-2002, directing the petitioner herein to deposit the entire consideration.
2. The respondents filed C.R.P. No. 1372 of 2002, aggrieved by the order of amendment and the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 2460 of 2002 complaining about condition as to deposit of the entire consideration. Through a common order, dated 13-11-2002, this Court allowed both the C.R.Ps. It was held that the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal ought not to have dealt with the application inasmuch as allowing the application would result in enhancement of the value of the suit, which obviously, is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. It was also observed that the LA. together with the suit ought to have been returned to the petitioner herein, so that it could have been presented in the Court of the District Judge.
3. The suit, together with LA. was returned to the petitioner and thereafter, he presented the same to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Warangal. Through an order, dated 2840-2003, the learned District Judge rejected the LA. on the ground that the relief claimed by the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement of sale is barred by limitation. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.
4. Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court ought not to have rejected the application on the plea of limitation, since that is a question, which can be decided only after recording the evidence. He contends that this Court has already protected the interest of the respondents in the matter of raising the plea of limitation and as such, the order under revision cannot be sustained.
5. Sri Ashok Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that his clients got issued a notice, dated 14-8-1998, calling upon the petitioner herein to pay the balance of consideration and since it was not paid, they cancelled the agreement. He submits that the respondents have served the copy of the written statement, which contained all these pleas, on 26-8-1998, on the petitioner. The learned Counsel contends that the present plea is barred by limitation, if computed from the date of service of the written statement or date of service of notice.
6. The petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the respondents. He intended to amend the prayer, claiming the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. Though his application was ordered on an earlier occasion, the amendment came to be set aside by this Court on an issue relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner presented the application, together with the suit, before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Warangal. The learned District Judge rejected the application, on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
7. It is true that the limitation is a plea, which needs to be decided on the basis of facts and for the most part of it, it is a mixed question of fact and law. Where, however, the admitted facts are sufficient to disclose that a plea is barred by limitation, there does not exist any necessity for the Courts to postpone the decision upon it, till the evidence is recorded. It is for this reason that Rule 11 of Order 7 permits the rejection of the plaint and the Court does not wait till the evidence is recorded.
8. The limitation for claiming the relief of specific performance is three years under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The starting point for computation of this limitation is as under:
the starting point for limitation is the date fixed for performance, or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused.
9. In the instant case, the respondents filed written statement, taking the plea that the agreement of sale between themselves and the petitioner was cancelled and thereby, they have put the petitioner on notice, of their disinclination to perform their part of contract under the agreement. The written statement was served upon the petitioner on 26-8-1998. Reference was made to a notice, dated 14-8-1998, where under, the petitioner was called upon to perform the part of contract. It is a matter of record that the application for amendment was filed on 2-11-2001. It is clearly beyond three years, whether computed from the date of receipt of notice or date of service of written statement. Therefore, the relief for specific performance is clearly barred by limitation.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan : AIR2001SC699 . A perusal of the said judgment discloses that there was any amount of dispute as to the starting point of limitation and the Supreme Court observed that the predominant object of allowing applications to amend the pleadings, is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Where, however, there is no dispute as to the starting point of limitation and the plea sought to be incorporated through amendment is barred by limitation, the question of permitting such amendments does not arise.
11. For the foregoing reasons, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed.