TARLOK SINGH versus VIJAY KUMAR SABHARWAL

TARLOK SINGH versus VIJAY KUMAR SABHARWAL

The limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance commenced from the date fixed by the agreement for execution of sale deed, i.e., 15 days from vacation of injunction. Since the application to amend the plaint to claim specific performance was allowed after the expiry of the limitation period, the suit was barred by limitation. The suit for perpetual injunction did not save limitation nor did conversion by amendment relate back to the original date of filing.

Parties
Appellant: Tarlok Singh; Respondent: Vijay Kumar Sabharwal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Suit dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Limitation Under Article 54 of Limitation Act, Amendment of Pleadings, Perpetual Injunction
Civil Law Limitation Law Contract Law Specific Performance Limitation Under Article 54 of Limitation Act Amendment of Pleadings Perpetual Injunction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarlok Singh

Appellant

Vijay Kumar Sabharwal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the claim was introduced by amendment of plaint after expiry of prescribed limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance commenced from the date fixed by the agreement for execution of sale deed, i.e., 15 days from vacation of injunction. Since the application to amend the plaint to claim specific performance was allowed after the expiry of the limitation period, the suit was barred by limitation. The suit for perpetual injunction did not save limitation nor did conversion by amendment relate back to the original date of filing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Suit dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The suit stands dismissed.