JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the issue relating to the limitation has been decided as preliminary issue and it has been held that the suit was within limitation. 2. The suit for specific performance of agreement dated 24.12.2004 was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs on 27.05.2008 inter-alia with the averments that the plaintiff despite being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant-vendor was not executing the sale deed pertaining to the property in question. It was inter-alia claimed in the plaint that the cause of action arose on account of failure of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed despite notice. 3. The petitioner-defendant filed preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit, wherein it was claimed that the cause of action to the plaintiff arose from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 24.12.2004 and as the suit was filed beyond three years from the said date, the suit was barred by limitation and therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. 4. 4. The trial court framed the issue pertaining to limitation based on such preliminary objection raised by the petitioner and after hearing the parties, came to be following conclusion :— ^^mDr bdjkjukek ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd le; lafonk dk efeZHkwr rRo ugha jgk gS vkSj mDr foØ; bdjkjukek dh ikyuk le;≤ ij bdjkjukek esa of.kZr nqdku vksVks odZ 'kkWi tks fdjk;s ij nh xbZ gS] mlds [kkyh gksus ij fd;s tkus dh ckr dgh xbZ gSA bl izdkj mDr vksVks odZ 'kkWi dh nqdku dc [kkyh gqbZ gS] bl rF; dk dksbZ Li"V vadu ;k ifjfLFkfr;ka oknhx.k }kjk vfHkys[k ij izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA Lohd`r :i ls mDr bdjkjukek fnukad 24-12-04 dks fu"ikfnr gqvk gS rc ls yxkdj bdjkjukek dh ikyuk djokus dh fof/kd le;kof/k rhu o"kZ gSA blds ckn Hkh jkf'k mijksDrkuqlkj vnk djus dh ckr dks ysdj oknhx.k }kjk mDr bdjkjukek izfroknhx.k }kjk ikyuk ugha fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa ;g okn izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk oknhx.k }kjk izfroknhx.k dks uksfVl izn'kZ 5 fn;k tkuk izdV gqvk gS tks vfnukafdr gSA bl ij dksbZ fnuakd Hkh vafdr ugha gSA bldk tokc uksfVl fnukad 17-06-06 dks fn;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA tokc uksfVl esa mYysf[kr gS fd os nks yk[k :i;s lkbZ isVs oknhx.k dks vnk djus dks rS;kj gSA bl izdkj ;g rF; rks izFken`"V;k izekf.kr gS fd uksfVl oknhx.k dk izfroknhx.k dks feyk gS vkSj ftldk tokc fnukad 17-06-06 dks fn;k x;k] ftldk tokcqy tokc oknhx.k }kjk iqu% vfnukafdr fn;s tkus dh QksVks izfr izLrqr gqbZ gSA Lohd`r :i ls ;g okn oknhx.k }kjk fnukad 27-05-08 dks izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj Lo;a izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar dh jks'kuh esa oknhx.k }kjk izfroknhx.k dks lafonk dh fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k dh ikyuk djokus gsrq fn;s x;s uksfVl dh frfFk ls le;kof/k ekuus dh ckr dgh xbZ gSA okn dk fcUnq gekjs er esa rFkk vkSj fcUnq dk fefJr iz'u Hkh gSA vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj gekjh fouez jk; esa ;g okn fnukad 17-06-06 ls yxkdj rhu o"kZ dh vof/k vFkkZr fnukad 17-06-09 ds e/; izLrqr fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gS blfy, okn le;kof/k ds Hkhrj izLrqr fd;k tkuk ekuk tkrk gS vkSj ;g fook|d oknhx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA** 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as from the facts as indicated, it was apparent that the agreement was executed between the parties on 24.12.2004 and the suit was filed on 27.05.2008 and as apparently, the suit was not filed within three years from the date of execution of the agreement, the same was ex-facie barred by limitation and the trial court committed error in coming to the conclusion that as the suit was filed within three years from the date the plaintiff issued notice on 17.06.2006, the same was within limitation and therefore, the finding of the trial court on the issue deserves to be set-aside and suit deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the agreement envisaged execution of the sale deed latest by 30.06.2005 and as the same was not executed on the said date, and the suit was filed on 27.05.2008, the same was well within limitation and therefore, the trial court was justified in deciding the issue in favour of the plaintiff, which order does not call for any interference. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the agreement dated 24.12.2004 executed between the parties, which has implication on the plea of limitation as raised by the petitioner, which reads as under :— ^^9- ;g fd nksuks gh i{kdkjku ;g mijksDr of.kZr tk;nkn eqdfEey rg[kkuk] rg[kkuk esa tkus dh uky] iSlst] ikl esa igyh eafty esa tkus ds fy;s vkbZ gqbZ uky o vke lM+d ij X;kjg QqV ukS bap iSlst o nqdku ij cukbZ gqbZ nks nqdkusa] bl fgLlk tk;nkn dks vkxs lqfo/kk ds fy;s cspku bdjkj lEifr ds uke ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk] mijksDr jde 12]00]000@& v[kjs :i;s ckjg yk[k ds cny [kjhn djuk o cspku djuk Lohdkj djrs gSaA vkSj ftlds QyLo:i i{kdkj uEcj nks }kjk i{kdkj uEcj ,d dks :i;s 2]00]000@& v[kjs :i;s nks yk[k vkt fnu udn vnk dj fn;s gS tks i{kdkj uEcj ,d ds nksukas gh lnL;ksa dks izkIr gks tkuk ekU; o Lohdkj gS vkSj cdk;k jgh gqbZ jde esa ls :i;s 5]00]000@& v[kjs :i;s iakp yk[k i{kdkj uEcj nks }kjk i{kdkj uEcj ,d dks fnukad 31-01-2005 rd vnk dj fn;s tk;saxs rc i{kdkj uEcj ,d bl tsj cspku bdjkj tk;nkn esa ls vke lM+d ij vkbZ gqbZ ,d nqdku tks orZeku esa vkWVks fjis;fjax dk dke djus okys dks nh gqbZ gS mldks NksM+dj ckdh tk;nkn dk i{kdkj uEcj nks dks ekSds ij okdbZ dCtk ekydkuk lkSi nsaxs vkSj fQj ftl fgLlk tk;nkn dk mi;ksx o miHkksx djus es i{kdkj uEcj nks iw.kZ :i ls Lora= o l{ke gksxsa o jgsxsa ftleas i{kdkj uEcj ,d ds nksuksa lnL; vFkok mudh vky vkSykn fdlh izdkj dk n[ky o ,rjkt] vkifRr vkfn ugha dj ldsaxsA 10- ;g fd ckdh tks ,d nqdku tks vHkh orZeku esa vkWVks fjis;lZ dk dke djus okys ds ikl esa fdjk;s ij gSa ftl nqdku dks i{kdkj uEcj ,d fnuakd 30-6-2005 rd fdjk;snkj ls [kkyh djok ysxk vkSj nqdku etdqj [kkyh djok yh tkus ij i{kdkj uEcj ,d i{kdkj uEcj nks dks lwpuk ns nsxk vkSj ml lqpuk ds 15 fnu ds vUnj i{kdkj uEcj nks cdk;k :i;s 5]00]000@& v[kjs :i;s ikap yk[k vnk djrs gq;s cspku ukek@ukesa vius Lo;a ds uke ij vFkok vU; fdlh nhxj uke ij iath;u djok ldsxk vkSj iath;u esa yxus okyk reke LVkEi o jftLVªh dk [kpkZ i{kdkj uEcj nks ds ftEesa jgsxkA 12- ;g fd tks vkWVks odZ 'kkWi dks fdjk;s ij nh gqbZ nqdku gSa og nqdku tc rd [kkyh ugha gks tkrh gS rc rd ml nqdku dk fdjk;k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj i{kdkj uEcj ,d dks jgsxk vkSj mlls nqdku [kkyh djokus ds fy;s vof/k fnuakd 30-6-2005 rd dh yh xbZ gS ;fn fdUgh vifjgk;Z dkj.kksa ls i{kdkj uEcj ,d mDr fdjk;snkj ls nqdku [kkyh ugha djok ldk rks ;g bdjkj ukek ml vkWVks odZ 'kkWi okyh gn rd esa lekIr o fujLr gksuk ekuk o le>k tk;sxk vkSj ;fn i{kdkj uEcj nks }kjk cdk;k jgh gqbZ fgLlk tk;nkn dk cspku ukek fnuakd 31-1-2005 rd ugha djok;k tkrk gS rks fQj fnuakd 30-6-2005 ds ckn 7 lkr fnu ds vUnj vUnj i{kdkj uEcj nks ml cdk;k fgLlk tk;nkn ¼vkWVks ikVZ okyh nqdku dks NksM+dj½ iath;u djok ysxkA** A bare look at the above agreement reveals that the agreement pertained to two portions i.e. a shop and rest of the portion. It was indicated in the agreement that the shop in question was on rent, which would be got vacated by 30.06.2005 and in case, the same was not vacated by 30.06.2005, after seven days the respondent would get the registration of rest of the property done. From the said stipulation in the agreement, it is apparent that the parties were required to wait till 30.06.2005 for the shop to be vacated and in case, the same was not vacated by 30.06.2005, within seven days registration of rest of the portion could be got done. 9. Provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides the limitation for a suit for specific performance of contract, wherein the suit is required to be filed within three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused. As in the present case, the date fixed for the performance as indicated in the agreement herein-before was in fact 07.07.2005, in case the shop was not vacated by 30.06.2005, and admittedly the suit was filed on 27.05.2008 i.e. within three years from 07.07.2005, it can not be said that the suit was barred by limitation as claimed by the defendant vendor. 10. So far as the determination made by the trial court is concerned, the determination made is ex-facie incorrect, inasmuch as, the trial court has computed the limitation from the date the plaintiff give notice, which date in the present circumstances of the case would have no implication in so far as the computation of the limitation is concerned. 11. However, as determined herein-before, it has been found that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation, the order passed by the trial court deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiff does not call for any interference. Consequently, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.