ORDER : 1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 12.04.2023 as well as decree drawn on 24.04.2023 in Special Civil Suit No.217 of 2021 by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-original plaintiff has filed the Special Civil Suit No.217 of 2021 for a relief of specific performance of a notorised agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 together with a relief of permanent injunction. The defendant No.3 filed an application Exhibit-10 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Principal Senior Civil Court, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 12.04.2023 allowed the application of defendant No.3 and rejected the plaint. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, the appellant-plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that original owner of the land i.e. defendant No.3 Tribhovanbhai Narandas Patel executed a registered agreement to sell dated 04.10.2006 in favour of the defendant No.1 Shivubhai Shamadbhai Patel for the lands bearing Survey No.8/8, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-52-61, Survey No.9/1, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-19-22, Survey No.9/3, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-19-22, Survey No.9/4, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-19-22, Survey No.10/1, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-21-25, Survey No.10/2, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-19-22, Survey No.10/3, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-31-36, Survey No.11/1, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-04-52, Survey No.11/2, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-47-55, Survey No.11/3, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-44-52 and Survey No.16/3, Hector Aare Sq. Mtr. 0-32-37 of Village Bhatt, Taluka & District Gandhinagar. Defendant No.2 as a power of attorney holder of defendant No.3 executed a notorised agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 to purchase rights of registered agreement to sell dated 04.10.2006 which was executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1. It is further submitted that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 agreed consideration at Rs.70 lakhs and it was agreed between the parties that as and when the entire consideration is paid to defendant No.1, possession of the land shall be handed over to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the said agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010, plaintiff paid Rs.5 lakhs in cash as part of sale consideration. It is further submitted that in the said agreement to sell, no outer limit was fixed for the execution of registered sale deed. Pursuant to the said agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010, plaintiff paid Rs.5 lakhs in cash as part of sale consideration. It is further submitted that in the said agreement to sell, no outer limit was fixed for the execution of registered sale deed. It is further submitted that the clause No.3 of the said agreement suggests that defendant No.1 was to get the Title Clearance Certificate from the approved Solicitor. The time limit of the said Banakhat was fixed for 24 months from the date of obtaining Title Clearance Certificate. The time limit of agreement to sell was agreed to be extended automatically, till Title Clearance Certificate is not obtained. 4.1. Thus, the submission of learned advocate for the appellant is that the time was not the essence of the contract. It is further submitted that plaintiff waited for the Title Clearance Certificate to be obtained by defendant No.1. However defendant No.1 did not obtain necessary Title Clearance Certificate from the approved Solicitor and when the plaintiff came to know on 29.11.2021, that the defendants are trying to transfer the suit land in question to third party, suit was filed for a specific performance coupled with permanent injunction. It is further submitted that the invocation of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, has no place in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.2. It is further submitted that the averments made in the plaint require full fledged trial and unless an opportunity is given to the plaintiff to prove the averments made in the plaint, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. It is further submitted that the cause of action of filing the present suit is also pleaded in the plaint. The plaint ought not to have been rejected on the ground of limitation as well as for want of establishment of relationship between plaintiff and defendant No.3. It is further submitted that the agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is not even the case of the plaintiff that prior permission of the defendant No.3 before execution of the agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 was necessary. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error by observing the facts which are not pleaded in the plaint. 5. It is not even the case of the plaintiff that prior permission of the defendant No.3 before execution of the agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 was necessary. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error by observing the facts which are not pleaded in the plaint. 5. I have considered the submissions and the paper-book which is placed on record during the course of hearing and I have meaningfully read the entire plaint and documents in support of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is mainly that a registered Banakhat was executed between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 on 04.10.2006 and the rights were purchased by the plaintiff by a notarized agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010. From the averments made in the plaint and more particularly, the reliefs which are sought for in the plaint are considered, it seems that the reliefs are drafted, in a very smart manner. What is prayed for in the plaint is for a relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell from all the defendants without mentioning about which agreement to sell. The plaintiff is seeking specific performance. Even in the paragraph of the cause of action, only two dates are mentioned, one is the date of date of Banakhat dated 23.03.2010 and another date of 29.11.2021 which is the date on which plaintiff came to know that defendants are in the process of transferring the suit land. An illusion is created by the plaintiff of having a cause of action. To plead cause of action and disclose cause of action for filing the suit are different. From the averments made in the plaint, there does not disclose any cause of action. Plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No.3. Even from the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has not averred as to how the plaint is within limitation. Since the plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell which is of the year 2010. The suit is filed in the year 2021. The plaintiff has not even averred as to how and in what manner, defendant No.3 is impleaded in the array of parties. If the averments made in the plaint are seen, the averment of readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 is pleaded. The suit is filed in the year 2021. The plaintiff has not even averred as to how and in what manner, defendant No.3 is impleaded in the array of parties. If the averments made in the plaint are seen, the averment of readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 is pleaded. But plaint is silent regarding what steps or actions, plaintiff has taken after 23.03.2010 for getting the sale deed executed in her favour. Thus, by bald averment of readiness and willingness to have the sale deed in her favour is not sufficient. The party who is seeking specific performance has to prima facie show some material on record that plaintiff has taken steps keep the contract alive. Only general and vague averments averred in the plaint do not bring the suit within a period of limitation. Article 54 of the Limitation Act is apt to refer hereinunder: Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 54. For specific performance of a contract Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Thus, the time to run limitation would be from date fixed for performance and if no time is fixed, the notice that performance is refused by other side would be the reckoning period of limitation. In the present case, time limit of agreement to sell was fixed for 24 months from the date of receipt of the title clearance certificate. And till such title clearance certificate is not received, the time limit of agreement to sell shall be automatically extended till the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Even when time was not the essence of contract, plaintiff should, within a reasonable time, approach the Court for a relief of specific performance. In the present case, the plaintiff did not approach the Court for a relief of specific performance within a reasonable time. When the title clearance certificate was not obtained by the seller within a reasonable time from the date of the agreement to sell, the conduct of the seller amounts to refusal of performance. And from the knowledge of such refusal plaintiff must file suit within a period of 3 years from such deemed refusal. When the title clearance certificate was not obtained by the seller within a reasonable time from the date of the agreement to sell, the conduct of the seller amounts to refusal of performance. And from the knowledge of such refusal plaintiff must file suit within a period of 3 years from such deemed refusal. When the suit is filed after a long period of time, the plaintiff must aver in the plaint as to how the suit is within limitation and also must point out in the plaint the attempts made by the plaintiff to pursue the defendant No.1 to get the sale deed executed in her favour. No agreement shall remain in force without a time limit, unless the parties have either expressly or impliedly extended the period of execution of the sale deed. 6. By clever drafting, the plaintiff cannot have the benefit of bringing a time barred suit within a period of limitation. It transpires that there is no disclosure of cause of action for filing the suit as well as seeking any reliefs against the defendant No.3. When there is no disclosure of cause of action by the plaintiff in the plaint, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are attracted. The suit is clearly time barred, as the specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.03.2010 is sought for after the period of 11 years without any averment of as to how the suit is within limitation. 7. The learned trial Court has considered the averments made in the plaint and documents in support of the plaint and has come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish any cause for seeking any relief against defendant No.3. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) are attracted in the present case. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case and also in view of above discussion, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the plaint and I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings which have been arrived at by the learned trial Court. Hence the present First Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. 8. Accordingly, the connected Civil Application/s stands disposed of.