ORDER : Sheel Nagu, J. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission. This second appeal filed under section 100 assails the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sale dated 7-5-2003 has been dismissed on dual grounds, i.e. firstly the suit was not maintainable as the property in question could not have been alienated in the absence of the permission by Collector under section 165(7)(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the suit being barred by limitation. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to the suit in question is that for an agricultural piece of land bearing Survey No. 8/3 admeasuring 1.176 hectares agreement to sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 7-5-2003 agreeing to the effect that the defendant is ready and willing to alienate his suit land belonging to him for consideration of Rs. 40,000/- which has been received in full and the possession of the suit property has also been handed over to the plaintiff. It was also agreed upon that latest by 30-5-2005 the defendant would execute the sale deed and prepare the necessary papers. The plaintiff further contended that despite reminders the defendant did not execute the sale deed. Ultimately by legal notice sent on 22-7-2009 the plaintiff sought execution of the agreement in question or return of the consideration of amount with interest, in the alternate. 3. The defendant denied all the contentions of the plaintiff. 4. The trial Court and as well as the first appellate Court found that the suit was barred by limitation. As against three years provided for institution of suit for specific performance of contract from the date the plaintiff noticed that performance is refused, suit was instituted on 6-4-2011. In the instant case the date of 30-5-2005 was specifically fixed in the agreement dated 7-5-2003 as the last date for Performance of the Contract. The suit having been filed on 6-4-2011 was thus definitely time barred and therefore the finding of the Court below in this respect cannot be found fault with. 5. The Courts below have also declined grant of alternate prayer of refund the amount of consideration of Rs. The suit having been filed on 6-4-2011 was thus definitely time barred and therefore the finding of the Court below in this respect cannot be found fault with. 5. The Courts below have also declined grant of alternate prayer of refund the amount of consideration of Rs. 40,000/- with interest on the ground that the suit itself is barred by limitation and therefore the plaintiff is left remedyless in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and Another Vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi by Lrs. and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 676 . 6. The concurrent findings of the Court are factual in nature and do not deserve any interference from this Court. 7. In view of the above neither any proposed substantial questions of law nor any new ones arise for consideration. Accordingly, this Second Appeal deserves to be and is, therefore, rejected.