Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R.C.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.
(2.) A suit being suit No.373 of 1992 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling the land mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff was claiming right over the property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 12.6.1989. The defendant declined existence of any agreement to sell and filed their written statement on 21.9.1993. It appears that thereafter the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plait under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC on 21.5.1994 for adding a prayer for specific performance of the agreement dated 12.6.1989. The trial court considering the prayer for amendment by which prayer for specific performance was sought to be added rejected the application on the ground that the suit for specific performance was barred by time according to Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 54 reads as under: "The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused."
(3.) A copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure-1 to this affidavit. First page of the agreement contemplates the date fixed for specific performance dated 9.6.1990, therefore, in view of the Article 54, the date of performance of the contract was fixed in agreement relied upon by the plaintiff and, therefore in 1994 when the amendment was moved seeking to add prayer of specific performance, the same could not have been added as the same was time barred. There is no error in the order of the trial court which may merit any consideration by this Court. The revision is thus dismissed. Revision dismissed.;