Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,J. - (1.) The opposite party no. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 5426 of 2016 against the petitioner (defendant no. 1) and opposite party nos. 2 to 6, the other defendants, for specific performance directing the sixth defendant to execute a lease deed in respect of 5th and 6th floor of the Lake Mall situated at Premises No. 104, Ras Bihari Avenue, Kolkata- 700 029, in terms of and in accordance with the purported agreement between the parties, and for ancillary reliefs.
(2.) The first defendant/petitioner took out an application for rejection of the plaint of the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such application having been dismissed by the impugned order, the present revisional application has been preferred.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the plaint is ex facie barred by limitation in terms of Article 54, read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is argued that the plaintiff itself alleged that, pursuant to the purported agreement, the petitioner had paid certain amounts of money during the years 2006 and 2007. However, as per the plaint allegations, the petitioner did not take any steps to execute any lease deed in terms of the purported agreement. Only on August 14, 2013, the Chief Minister of West Bengal inaugurated the Lake Mall, with regard to which the agreement was entered into. It is mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff had, by numerous representations, including those made in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, called upon the defendant no. 1 to have the process of grant of lease and delivery of possession to the plaintiff expedited. By placing reliance on electronic mails and letters, starting from September 7, 2012 onwards till January 15, 2016, learned counsel alleges that the plaintiff merely sought to prolong the starting point of limitation, whereas the limitation had started to run when the petitioner failed to execute, even as per the plaint case, the lease deed-in-question after April 20, 2007 when the last tranche of payment was made by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1.;