Limitation under Article 54 depends on disputed refusal dates; specific performance and injunction claims required trial, not summary rejection.

Where no time for performance is fixed, limitation for specific performance under Article 54 turns on the date when refusal of performance is first known, and that factual question ordinarily requires evidence. The courts below erred in treating the limitation defence as a preliminary issue because the date of refusal was disputed; the specific performance claim could not be held time-barred at that stage. The related injunction claim, said to rest on possession, also depended on disputed facts about accrual and possession and likewise could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without trial. The limitation findings were set aside and the matter remitted for trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for specific performance could be dismissed as barred by limitation at the preliminary stage under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when no time for performance was fixed and the date of refusal was disputed. (ii) Whether the suit for perpetual injunction was also barred by limitation and could be dismissed along with the specific performance claim.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for specific performance could be dismissed as barred by limitation at the preliminary stage under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when no time for performance was fixed and the date of refusal was disputed.

Analysis: Where no date for performance is fixed in the agreement, limitation under Article 54 turns on the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. That factual inquiry ordinarily requires evidence and cannot be conclusively decided merely on pleadings unless refusal is admitted and the suit is plainly beyond three years from that date. The trial court and the appellate courts erred in treating the issue as fit for disposal as a preliminary issue without trial of the disputed facts.

Conclusion: The suit for specific performance could not be held barred by limitation at the preliminary stage, and the finding to that effect was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for perpetual injunction was also barred by limitation and could be dismissed along with the specific performance claim.

Analysis: The prayer for injunction based on alleged possession was not automatically rendered non-maintainable merely because the specific performance claim was questioned. Its limitation depended on when the right to sue accrued and on proof of possession, matters requiring evidence. The injunction claim could not be rejected as barred by limitation without a full trial.

Conclusion: The injunction claim was not liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation at the preliminary stage.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the concurrent findings on limitation were set aside, and the suit was remitted for trial of all remaining issues in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: When limitation under Article 54 depends on disputed facts such as the date of refusal and no time for performance is fixed, the issue ordinarily cannot be finally decided as a preliminary issue without evidence; a related injunction claim based on possession also requires trial where its accrual and maintainability are disputed.

---