ORDER : 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment & decree dated 16.02.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Hoshangabad in civil appeal no. 1-A/2015 affirming the judgment & decree dated 31.10.2014 passed by learned Second Civil Judge Class-1 Hoshangabad, in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2013. 2. In short, the facts are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit on 30.07.2012 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31.12.1991 (Ex.P/1) with regard to agricultural lands Khasra Nos. 445/6, 446, 447/2, 448/2, 449/2, 450/6, 451/5 & 451/10 total area 1.554 situated in Village Malakhedi, Tahsil and District Hoshangabad with the allegations that the plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the land in question after payment of advance amount of consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. It is alleged that the sale deed was to be executed after demarcation of the land but the defendants' ascendant Lt. Damodar Prasad Yadav did not get the land demarcated, therefore, sale deed could not be executed and ultimately the plaintiffs after issuing notice in the year 2006, instituted the suit. 3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that the plaintiffs have never been ready and willing to get executed the sale deed. After execution of the agreement in question and after receipt of notice, the defendants specifically denied from execution of any agreement of sale and the suit filed is clearly barred by limitation. With these contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of plaint allegations, learned trial court framed as many as eight issues and recorded evidence of the parties. After consideration of the same, learned trial Court vide its judgment & decree dated 31.10.2014 held that the agreement was executed but the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree of specific performance, however, learned trial Court held the suit to be within limitation. 5. Upon filing appeal by the plaintiffs, learned first appellate Court vide its judgment & decree dated 16.02.2018 affirmed the findings of the trial Court and also held that the suit is clearly barred by limitation. 6. 5. Upon filing appeal by the plaintiffs, learned first appellate Court vide its judgment & decree dated 16.02.2018 affirmed the findings of the trial Court and also held that the suit is clearly barred by limitation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that despite holding the agreement to be a proven document, learned Courts below have erred in refusing decree of specific performance and the learned first appellate Court in absence of any cross objection had no right to reverse the findings recorded by learned trial Court with regard to limitation. He also submits that in view of the findings recorded on issue No. 1, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of refund of advance consideration. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 8. As per the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, agreement dated 31.12.1991 was executed in between the plaintiffs and Lt. Damodar Prasad. While deciding the issue No. 4, learned Courts have categorically held that the plaintiffs have never been ready and willing to get executed sale deed in pursuance of the agreement dated 31.12.1991 (Ex. P/1). 9. Apparently, after execution of agreement dated 31.12.1991, first notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiffs in the year 2006 whereas the suit has been instituted on 30.07.2012. 10. From bare perusal of the agreement, it is clear that the registered sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.02.1992 and the condition of getting the land demarcated was not the condition precedent for execution of the sale deed. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation and learned first appellate Court has not committed any error in holding the suit to be barred by limitation. 12. Even otherwise, the findings recorded by learned Courts below with regard to readiness and willingness and also on the question of limitation being pure findings of fact, are not liable to be interfered with in the limited scope of Section 100 CPC. As the suit was clearly barred by limitation, which was filed after more than 20 years, learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in not passing decree of refund of consideration also. 13. As the suit was clearly barred by limitation, which was filed after more than 20 years, learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in not passing decree of refund of consideration also. 13. Accordingly, finding no involvement of substantial question of law in the second appeal, the same is dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. 14. However, no order as to costs. 15. Interim applications, if any, shall stand disposed off.