JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The controversy between the parties Govind Ram, plaintiff, on the one hand, and the defendants Mohan Chand Bhatnagar (son) and Nirankar Swarup Bhatnagar (father), on the other, is based on a registered agreement to sell dated 10.10.1983, which was to sell the property, as has been enumerated in the plaint, after the litigation pertaining to the ceiling in the courts is over. The sale deed was agreed to be executed within three months after the litigation regarding the ceiling matters came to an end. Govind Ram, plaintiff, on the strength of a special power of attorney was pursuing the matter in the courts in favour of property owners and that ceiling matter was finally adjudicated by the trial court on 7.3.1987. No further appeal/revision or writ could be preferred against the judgment dated 7.3.1987. So, it became thus final. 2. As per the terms of agreement, the proposed purchaser Govind Ram had to seek specific performance of that agreement up to 7.6.1987, but he remained silent. Even more, three years as envisaged under Article 54 of the Limitation Act had also been expired on 7.6.1990 and during this tenure also, he remained silent and did not initiate for execution of sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 10.10.1983. After passing more than nine years, the suit was filed seeking specific performance on dated 30.7.1999. 3. The argument of learned Counsel of the second appellant is that silence on the part of the plaintiff was on account of issuance of fresh notice from the ceiling department on dated 28.4.1987. So, he considered the ceiling proceedings as were being continued and he was constrained to launch this suit when the respondent no. 3 Ghanshyam Das Tarani and respondent no. 4 Harjit Singh showed the gestures to take forcible possession of the property on the strength two sale deeds dated 1.6.1999 and 16.7.1999 respectively in their favour by Mohan Chand Bhatnagar. The suit was contested and dismissed by the trial court. The appeal whereagainst filed by Govind Ram was also failed. Therefore, he has come up in this second appeal. 4. The suit was contested and dismissed by the trial court. The appeal whereagainst filed by Govind Ram was also failed. Therefore, he has come up in this second appeal. 4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit was not barred by the time because the issuance of a fresh notice by the ceiling department on 28.4.1987 should have been considered to be fresh start of the ceiling matter regarding the property in question and even it was continuing at the time of institution of the suit on 30.7.1999. Plaintiff appellant could not bring any admissible evidence in this regard on the record. Further, the Court is not prepared to accept the contention that after final adjudication up to the level of appeal regarding the ceiling matter, the Court should have accepted the fresh start of the ceiling case in terms of the special power of attorney dated 19.9.1983 executed by Mohan Chand Bhatnagar in favour of Govind Ram. So, it is clear that the suit was barred by the time limitation as has been held by both the courts below. 5. It can also collaterally be noted that the basis of the suit, a registered agreement to sell dated 10.10.1983, was never brought on record by the plaintiff nor any circumstances were explained as to why he could not brought that basis on the record. Even a certified copy of the same he could have procured easily from the registration office. 6. In view of what has been stated above, this Court is not inclined to admit this second appeal. It is dismissed at the threshold.