of Limitation Act, 1963 - Respondent-Plaintiff filed two suits for specific performance of agreement and grant of permanent injunction in relation to suit house against Appellants-Defendants - High Court reversed decree of Trial Court and decreed both suits in appeal - Hence, present appeals by 1st and 3rd Defendants - Whether suit for specific performance was barred by limitation prescribed under Article 54 of Act - Held, time was not essence of agreement for its performance and parties too did not intend that it should be so - Time to perform agreement was not made an essence of contract by parties - As even after making balance payment after expiry of lease period, 2nd Defendant/Owner had to make efforts to transfer land in name of Plaintiff - That apart, no specific clause was found in agreement, which provided for completion of its execution on or before any specific date - Mere reading of Article 54 of Act would show that if date was fixed for performance of agreement, then noncompliance of agreement on date would give cause of action to file suit for specific performance within three years from date so fixed - However, when no such date was fixed, limitation of three years would begin when Plaintiff had noticed that Owner had refused performance of agreement - High Court rightly appreciated evidence for recording findings in Plaintiff's favour that she was ready and willing to perform her part of agreement - Suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation - Findings of High Court upheld - Appeal disposed of.“
