(1.) THIS appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the Additional District Judge (Junior Division), No. 1, Alwar dt. 29.11.2007 whereby the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff -respondent has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court with certain observations. At the outset it may be noted that present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar dt. 29.11.2007 and there is no interim order passed by this Court in the present appeal.
(2.) PLAINTIFF -respondent filed a suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction contending that he entered into an agreement for purchase of plot measuring 48x60 feet with the defendant Satish Kumar for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,500, out of which Rs. 5,500 was accepted as advance. The agreement was attested by notary public on 26.01.1982. Despite various reminders, the defendant did not get the sale deed registered. The plaintiff served legal notice upon the defendant. The plaintiff has then throughout remained ready and willing to get the sale deed registered, which defendant failed to execute. Hence, the decree was passed in the terms prayed for.
(3.) SHRI Satish Khandelwal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court had dismissed the suit as time barred and the appellate Court ought not to have interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court. In remanding, the trial Court could not have directed fresh consideration on different issue other than on the question of limitation. It was contended that in agreement, time was essence of the contract and since the suit was not filed within time, the suit was rightly dismissed. It is not clear as to why if the defendant did not take any steps to get the sale deed registered or take remedy for specific performance of the agreement for a period between 1982 to 2003, the suit was barred by limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act. It was therefore liable to be dismissed.