JUDGMENT 1. - This present first appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.302/2003 "Sitaro Devi v. Mohammed Saleem & Ors." who dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff seeking cancellation of agreement, declaration and injunction. 2. The appellant-plaintiff Smt. Sitaro Devi wife of late Shri Raghunandan Prasad Jain has filed the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the respondents-defendants Mohammed Saleem son of Shri Kamruddin Momin being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara dismissing the Civil Original Suit No.302/2003 "Sitaro Devi v. Mohammed Saleem & Ors." on 13.07.2004 , as the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence in her favour. The suit aforesaid was filed for declaration and specific performance of the contract allegedly in favour of her father Amanat Rai and injunction against the respondents-defendants. The suit aforesaid was filed for declaration and specific performance of the contract allegedly in favour of her father Amanat Rai and injunction against the respondents-defendants. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by passing a short-order which is quoted herein below for ready reference:- " 13-7-2004 & oknh ds vf/koDrk Jh i.M;k mifLFkrA izfroknh 1 ls 7 ds vf/koDrk Jh pspk.kh mifLFkrA vU; izfroknh 8] 9 rFkk 1 ls 14 ds fo:) ,d i{kh; vkns'k gS rFkk izfroknh la[;k 10 dh vksj ls tokcnkok izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA oknh ds fo)ku vf/koDrk Jh i.M;k us oknh lk{; esa le; pkgk iwoZ esa fnukad 1-6-2004 dks oknh dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk vfUre volj fn;k x;k Fkk Qjhdsu vkt oknh ds fo)ku vf/koDrk us lk{; izLrqr djus esa vlFkZrk O;Dr dh gS vr% oknh Lo;a ;k mudh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dh lk{; can dh tkrh gS pwafd oknh dh lk{; can dh xbZ gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknh dh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr djuk ugha pkgrk gS cgl vfUre lquh xbZ fook|d la[;k 1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6 o 7 ds lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh;k ij FkkA mijksDr lEcU/k esa oknh dh vksj ls lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS vr% oknh vius nkos dks lkfcr djus esa lQy ugha gqbZ gSA Qyr% oknh;k dk nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA vr% oknh Jherh flrkjksnsoh iRuh j?kquUnu izlkn tSu dk nkok izfroknhx.k ds fo:) [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA ipkZ fMdzh blh vuq:i cukbZ tkosA i=koyh okn vko';d dk;Zokgh QSlys 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA sd/- vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ( QkLV V~sd ) la[;k&2 HkhyokM+k] jkt0 " 3. The present first appeal was filed in this Court by the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sitaro Devi on 03.01.2005 and was lying on the defect side for a considerable period and in the last date, on 26.05.2011, this Court granted four week's time to the learned counsel for the appellant to remove all the defects. Thereafter, on 09.07.2012, this Court, issued fresh notices in relation to the unserved respondents to be given 'Dasti' and direct service was also permitted. After service of the notices on the respondents, the learned counsel Mr. Thereafter, on 09.07.2012, this Court, issued fresh notices in relation to the unserved respondents to be given 'Dasti' and direct service was also permitted. After service of the notices on the respondents, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali, has put in appearance for the respondents-defendants and after hearing both the learned counsels for the parties, on 05.01.2015, this Court this Court passed the following order, which is quoted herein below for ready reference:- "Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff may inform the Court on the next date as to whether against the order passed in SBCWP No.7572/2007- Smt. Sitaro Devi v. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. dismissing the writ petition on 29.11.2007, by a coordinate bench of this Court, has become final or not, and whether the appellant has challenged the said order before another higher court or not. The suit in the present case has been dismissed by the court below essentially on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff has not produced any evidence despite opportunity given by the court on 13.07.2004. Even though the present first appeal is now being argued at the admission stage after ten years of the impugned judgment and decree still the learned counsel for the appellant does not have the up-to date instructions with him about the fate of order dated 29.11.2007 passed against the appellant, in which the learned Single Judge clearly held that she being one of the legal representatives of late Sh. Amanat Rai, was bound by the decree against her and her brother, namely, Sukhmal Chandra S/o Sh. Amanat Rai, in which he challenged the redemption of mortgage by the respondent, who has already sold the property in question after redemption to the respondents and, therefore, lis had come to an end. No useful purpose will be served in entertaining this first appeal of the appellant/plaintiff in a suit for declaration filed by her claiming declaration of her rights and share in the suit property if she has not challenged the order dated 29.11.2007 dismissing her writ petition, referred above and if that has become final. Counsel may take instructions in this regard and inform the Court about the same on the next date. Put up on 12.01.2015." 4. The learned counsel Mr. Raj Singh Chahar on behalf of Mr. Counsel may take instructions in this regard and inform the Court about the same on the next date. Put up on 12.01.2015." 4. The learned counsel Mr. Raj Singh Chahar on behalf of Mr. Sajjan Singh appearing for the appellant-plaintiff without apprising the Court about last date's instructions submitted on merits today that the case was set down before the learned Trial Court on 13.07.2004 on the application filed by the defendants under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deciding the preliminary issues arising in the matter first though on the previous date i.e. 01.06.2004, time for producing the evidence was sought by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and it was directed by the learned Trial Court, while granting last opportunity, that on the next date, evidence may be produced by the plaintiff. It is urged by the learned counsel Mr. Raj Singh Chahar that the appellant plaintiff was under the impression that the matter would be first heard for deciding the preliminary issues though no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was produced before the learned Trial Court on 13.07.2004. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court on 13.07.2004 without first deciding the application under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC of the defendants and without deciding the preliminary issues had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for not leading the evidence in support of the issues framed and which were required to be proved by the plaintiff. He, therefore, submits that the present first appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the the matter deserves to be remanded sent to the learned Trial Court for fresh trial. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali appearing for the respondents-defendants submitted that the litigation between the parties has a long chequered history and starts from the year 1945 till date and the matter has travelled upto this court also on earlier occasions and the plaintiff/her family members, who are Legal Representatives of late Shri Amanat Rai, have lost the legal battle with respect to this very suit property in similar suits and a brief synopsis of the long chequered history of the litigation between the parties as per the list of dates given by Mr. Ravi Bhansali, which is not disputed by other side is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- "13.06.1945 Noor Ali mortgaged the Taliya bearing no. 142 with Amanat Rai for consideration of L 3000/-. 08.03.1961 Noor Ali sold the aforesaid Taliya to Kamrudin and Sirajudin for consideration of L 6000/- along with the right of redemption of mortgage. 14.02.1964 Amanat Rai filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 115/1964 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara for declaration and specific performance. 28.03.1969 The suit filed by the Amanat Rai for declaration and specific performance was dismissed as barred by limitation. 06.04.1976 The Additional District Judge, Bhilwara allowed the first appeal bearing no. 38/69 filed by the Amanat Rai and decreed the suit of specific performance. 02.08.1979 Amanat Rai died at Delhi. 28.10.1992 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 159/1976 came to be allowed by the Hon'ble High Court and the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 06.04.1976 was set aside. The judgment passed by the trial Court dated 28.03.1969 was restored/confirmed. The suit was dismissed on the point of limitation that the suit is barred by limitation. 15.05.1975 Kamrudin and Sirajudin filed a suit bearing no. 197/1975 for redemption of mortgage against Amanat Rai & Ors. 13.11.1997 The Civil Suit bearing no. 197/1975 came to be allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), East, Bhilwara and a decree of redemption of mortgage was passed. 01.03.2006 Sukhmal Chandra S/o Amanat Rai challenged the judgment dated 13.11.1997 before Appellate Court. The Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara dismissed the first appeal bearing no.114/2005 and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1997. 18.08.2006 S.B. Civil Second Appeal 264/2006, Sukhmal v. LRs of Kamrudin & Ors., came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 and 13.11.1997 were confirmed. 06.10.2006 The final decree of redemption of mortgage was passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division East, Bhilwara. 16.02.2008 The judgment of final decree was challenged by Sukhmal S/o Amanat Rai by way of civil appeal bearing no.56/2006. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2008. 09.04.2008 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.82/2008 Sukhmal v. LRs of Kamrudin & Ors. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court and the judgment dated 16.02.2008 and 06.10.2006 were confirmed. 03.09.1997 Smt. Sukh Devi D/o Amanat Rai filed a civil suit (Sister of present plaintiff Sitaro Devi) 13.07.2004 The aforesaid suit bearing no. 09.04.2008 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.82/2008 Sukhmal v. LRs of Kamrudin & Ors. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court and the judgment dated 16.02.2008 and 06.10.2006 were confirmed. 03.09.1997 Smt. Sukh Devi D/o Amanat Rai filed a civil suit (Sister of present plaintiff Sitaro Devi) 13.07.2004 The aforesaid suit bearing no. 301/2003 ws dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, No.2, Bhilwara. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid order also came to be disposed of on 25.10.2005 itself by this Hon'ble Court. 03.08.2007 Smt. Sitaro Devi D/o Amanat Rai filed the objection under Order 21, Rule 97 and 107 CPC bearing case no. Civil Misc. Case No. 11/2007 filed before Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Bhilwara. The aforesaid objections came to be dismissed by Executing Court. 29.10.2007 Smt. Sitara Devi challenged the order dated 03.08.2007 before appellate court. The Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46/2007 came to be dismissed by Additional District Judge, No.1, Bhilwara and order dated 03.08.2007 was confirmed. 29.11.2007 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/2007 Smt. Sitara Devi v. Mohd. Salim & Ors., thereafter came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court and the order dated 29.10.2007, and 03.08.2007 were upheld. 10.01.2008 D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.3/2008 Smt. Sitara Devi v. Mohd. Salim & Ors., also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Court and the order dated 29.11.2007 was upheld. 29.09.1997 Smt. Sitara Devi also filed present Civil Suit for declaration and specific performance with the prayer that the sale deed dated 08.03.1961 executed in favour of Kamrudin and Sirajudin is null and void and the decree dated 13.11.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 197/1975 be declared as null and void and the decree of permanent injunction be passed in her favour. 13.07.2004 That the aforesaid suit came to be dismissed and against which the present appeal is filed by Smt. Sitara Devi." 6. The learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali appearing for the respondents-defendants, therefore, contended that the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Sitaro Devi now cannot be permitted to agitate the matter in the present suit for declaration of sale deed 08.03.1961 to be void and seek specific performance in her favour for same suit property and since with the right of redemption of mortgage, the property was already transferred in favour of the respondents-defendants Kamruddin etc. by registered sale dated 08.03.1961 and, therefore, at this stage, the present suit for declaration and specific performance of the agreement cannot be permitted. The learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali strongly opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff for remand of the case to the learned Trial Court for de novo trial which in any case would be an exercise in futility. He also urged that the challenge to redemption of mortgage against Amanat Rai, father of the present plaintiff-appellant, has failed upto this court with dismissal of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 264/2006 "Sukhmal Chandra (brother of the present plaintiff-appellant) v. LRs of Kamrudin & Anr. on 18.08.2006 and even the subsequently final decree of redemption passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (East), Bhilwara on 06.10.2006 was also challenged by the same brother of plaintiff Sitaro Devi, Mr. Sukhmal by filing appeal bearing No. 56/2006 which too was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 16.02.2008 and against which the Civil Second Appeal No. 82/2008 "Sukhmal v. LRs of Kamrudin & Ors." was also dismissed by this Court on 09.04.2008. 7. Thereafter, another sister of the present plaintiff, namely, Sukh Devi filed a Civil Suit bearing number 301/2003 which was also rejected by the learned Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara on 13.07.2004 and in the execution proceedings, the present plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sitaro Devi also filed objections under Order 21, Rule 97 & 107 CPC which were also rejected by the Executing Court on 03.08.2007. Upon which, a further challenge by way of Misc. Appeal No. 46/2007 was also dismissed on 29.10.2007. Still not being satisfied too, the present plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sitaro Devi took the matter before this Court by way of filing a writ petition bearing number 7572/2007 "Smt. Sitaro Devi v. Mohd. Salim & Ors" which came to be dismissed on 29.11.2007 against which, D.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 3/2008 "Smt. Sitara Devi v. Mohd. Salim & Ors." was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.01.2008. 8. Thereafter only, the present suit seeking declaration of very old sale deed dated 08.03.1961 to be void and specific performance was filed by he present appellant-plaintiff on 29.09.1997 which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.07.2004 in the aforesaid circumstances and against which, the present first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. 9. 8. Thereafter only, the present suit seeking declaration of very old sale deed dated 08.03.1961 to be void and specific performance was filed by he present appellant-plaintiff on 29.09.1997 which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.07.2004 in the aforesaid circumstances and against which, the present first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. 9. In the aforesaid background and long chequered history of litigation between the parties, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali appearing for the defendants-respondents submitted that at this stage, the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sitaro Devi is not entitled to any relief in the present first appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. On the last date of hearing, on 05.01.2015, by the order, quoted herein above, the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to specifically apprise the Court, whether the plaintiff Smt. Sitaro Devi had challenged the order dated 29.11.2007 dismissing her own writ petition bearing number 7572/2007 before the Division Bench or not but, even today, the learned counsel Mr. Raj Singh Chahar appearing for the appellant plaintiff was unable to make any categoric statement of any further challenge and it is only the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali appearing for the respondents-defendants who pointed out that the challenge was made by the appellant plaintiff herself before the Division Bench by way of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 3/2008 which was dismissed by this Court on 10.01.2008, as aforesaid. 11. The observations as made by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing her Writ Petition No.7572/2007 on 29.11.2007 and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.01.2008 while dismissing her intra-court appeal are also quoted herein below for ready reference, which, in the considered opinion of this Court would bind the appellant and estop her from contending the plaintiffs' right over the property in question and still seek the specific performance of the contract in favour of her father Amanat Rai and seek any injunction against the respondents-defendants in the present suit. The order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant-plaintiff reads as under:- "Hon'ble Mr. Prakash Tatia, J. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7572 of 2007; decided on 29.11.2007. Smt. Sitara Devi VS Mohd. Salim & Ors. Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondent. Prakash Tatia, J. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7572 of 2007; decided on 29.11.2007. Smt. Sitara Devi VS Mohd. Salim & Ors. Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondent. Prakash Tatia, J.- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-objector who submitted objection petition under Order 21, Rule 9 CPC against the execution of the decree passed in Civil Original Suit No. 195/75 dated 13th Nov. 1997 and ultimately, upheld by this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 264/2006 by judgment dated 18th August, 2006. The objector-petitioner's contention is that she is legal heir of the original defendant Amanat Rai and Amanat Rai died during the pendency of the suit but she was not impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, the decree under challenge is not binding upon her. It is not in dispute that one of the legal representatives of Amanat Rai was also party in the litigation and when an objection was raised before the this Court in second appeal for not impleading other legal representatives of Amanat Rai that objection was rejected on the ground that it has not been shown that Amanat Rai had any other legal representatives. Be that as it may be, the decree was passed in a suit where Amanat Rai was party and his one of the legal representatives was on record and suit or appeal were not dismissed as abated by the courts in earlier round of litigation then that decree is binding against Amanat Rai and his successors. Otherwise also, on merits, the objector-petitioner could not prove any case. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that same petitioner filed one suit in the trial court and that was dismissed for want of evidence. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per his information, the appeal is pending against the said dismissal of the suit. (the present appeal) Be that as it may be, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below and no ground is made out for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed having no merit." 12. (the present appeal) Be that as it may be, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below and no ground is made out for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed having no merit." 12. The order dated 10.01.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the Special Appeal against the order dated 29.11.2007, filed by the present appellant-plaintiff reads as under:- "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur Spl. Appl. Writ No. 3 of 2008; dated 10.1.2008. Smt. Sitara Devi Vs Mohd Salim And Ors Mr. Deelip Kawadia, for the appellant/petitioner Hon'ble Shri N.P. Gupta, J. Hon'ble Shri Mohammed Rafiq, J. ORDER "Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the the impugned order and sequence of events. In our view, no sufficient ground is made out for any interference in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The present appeal is therefore, dismissed." 13. In view of this, once the legal representatives of Amanat Rai, including the present appellant-plaintiff Smt. Sitaro Devi, were held bound by the decree of redemption of mortgage and sale of same suit property, the objections having been raised at earlier point of time in the suit having already failed, the present suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Sitaro Devi seeking declaration of sale deed being void and for seeking specific performance of contract in her favour and further injunction against the defendants, was wholly misconceived and could not have been decreed granting such declaration or specific performance which undoubtedly is a discretionary relief to be given by the Court. Therefore, even though the dismissal of the suit in the present case has taken place for want of plaintiff's leading any evidence for which also no cogent reason has been given by the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sitaro Devi, as to why evidence was not produced by her on the given date of hearing before the learned Trial Court, i.e. 13.07.2004 and merely suggesting that the counsel was under the impression that the application for deciding the preliminary issues was to be heard and argued first, cannot be said to be a valid reason for not producing the evidence for which also, admittedly, the date of 13.07.2004 was fixed by the learned Trial Court. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present plaintiff Sitaro Devi is equally bound by earlier dismissal of the litigation by her father, brother and sister's side for the same cause and her own objections under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC having been dismissed, she has already lost any right to keep such an old lis alive some how or the other. Such cantankerous litigation has to be put down firmly. The present suit by plaintiff Sitaro Devi is nothing but an abuse and misuse of legal process and the litigation by her on already losing ground which has been dragged on for long years. 14. It is also rather quite unwholesome that the learned counsel Mr. Raj Singh Chahar had failed to even update his instructions and information about the long history of this litigation and could not apprise the Court about the later status of case after the Second Appeal No.159/1976 "Kamrudin v. Amanat Rai" was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 10.03.1987 as having abated but the same appeal was later on dismissed on merits by the subsequent order passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.10.1992 in the following terms:- "In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur JUDGEMENT Kamruddin v. Amanat Rai S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 159 of 1976 against the decree and judgment dated April 6, 1976, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara, by in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1989. Date of judgment: October 28, 1992 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Arora Mr. D.R. Bhandari, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: "Nobody appeared for the respondent. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the case. Though number of contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the present appeal can be decided only on the point of limitation. The document Ex. 1 the agreement was executed on 3-6-1945, by Noor Ali and the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara, on 14-2-1964. Though number of contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the present appeal can be decided only on the point of limitation. The document Ex. 1 the agreement was executed on 3-6-1945, by Noor Ali and the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara, on 14-2-1964. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action accrued to him on 21- 4-1961 when he came to know regarding the sale of the disputed property made by Noor Ali in favour of the defendants No.5 and 6 vide registered sale-deed dated 8-4-1961, for a consideration of Rs. 6000/-. According to the defendant, the document was executed on 3-6-1945, and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 14-2-64 which is clearly barred by time. Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act deals with the suits for specific performance of the contract. According to Article 54, the limitation provided for filing the suit is three years from the date fixed for the performance of the agreement or if no such date is fixed in the document, then three years from the date when the plaintiff had the notice that the performance is refused. In the present case, no date has been fixed in Ex. 1 and, therefore, the time will start to run from the date when the plaintiff had notice that his right was denied. As there is no actual notice in the present case, therefore, the refusal has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff, in his statement recorded before the trial Court, has stated that on 9-11-1960, he had gone to Bhilwara where Noor Ali met him and at that time Sirajuddin and Kamruddin were also with him. In their presence, a talk regarding the sale of Taliya also took place. Noor Ali made an offer to the plaintiff that he should pay some amount over and above the mortgage amount and may get the sale-deed registered in his favour, but he refused to accept that offer and, thereafter, he went away. He has further stated that as the sale had already been made in his favour and, therefore, he refused to make any payment over and above the mortgage-amount. He has further stated that as the sale had already been made in his favour and, therefore, he refused to make any payment over and above the mortgage-amount. The statement of this witness (plaintiff) clearly shows that a clear-cut offer was made by Noor Ali to the plaintiff for the performance of the contract, but the plaintiff declined to accept that offer. The limitation, therefore, starts from 9-11-1960 the date on which the offer was made by Noor Ali to the plaintiff and which was declined by the plaintiff. The time will start to run, thus, from 9- 10-60 and the period of three years provided under Article 54 of the Limitation Act expires on 9-11-1963 but the suit was filed on 14-2-1964, and as such it is clearly barred by time. In this view of the matter, the suit, filed by the plaintiff, was clearly barred by time and was rightly dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara, as being barred by time. The learned lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the finding and decree of the learned trial Court. In the result, the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant is allowed. The decree and the judgment dated April 6, 1976 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara is set aside and the decree and judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara on March 28, 1969 are restored and the suit filed of the plaintiff respondent is, therefore, dismissed. sd/- (B.R. ARORA), J." 15. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the first appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Sitaro Devi has no force on merits and the appellant-plaintiff cannot be given the decree of specific performance of contract, declaration of sale deed dated 08.03.1961 being illegal and any injunction against the defendants-respondents and no useful purpose would be served by remanding back the matter to the learned Trial Court for trial afresh. The long chequered history of litigation between the parties starting from the year 1945 must be given a quietus now and, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Sitaro Devi is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid by plaintiff-appellant to the respondents-Kamruddin and his Legal Representatives. A copy of this order be sent to the parties and the learned Trial Court concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******