Limitation for specific performance runs from refusal when time is not the essence; prompt suit upheld as timely.

Where time was not the essence of the reconveyance agreement, limitation for specific performance under Article 54 of the Limitation Act ran from the refusal to perform, not from the contractual repayment period. The proved facts showed that the claimant offered performance before expiry and the other party refused to complete the reconveyance; the cause of action therefore arose on refusal. A suit filed the next day was within limitation, and the decree for specific performance was upheld while the limitation challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for specific performance of the reconveyance agreement was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The agreement for reconveyance required repayment within eight years, but the surrounding circumstances showed that time was not treated as the essence of the contract. The finding of the High Court that the respondent had offered performance before expiry of the period and that the appellant refused to complete the reconveyance was supported by the proved facts. Under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation for specific performance runs from the date fixed for performance or, where no such effective performance occurs, from refusal. On the facts proved, the cause of action arose on refusal and the suit filed the next day was within time.

Conclusion: The suit was within limitation and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree restoring specific performance was upheld, and the challenge based on limitation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, where time is not the essence of the contract, limitation under Article 54 begins to run from refusal to perform, and a suit filed promptly after such refusal is within limitation.

---