AIROnline 2024 SC 742

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra , JJJ

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.20, S.10— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.54— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.47 R.1— Supreme Court Rules (2013) , O.47 R.1— Constitution of India , Art.137— Review - Error apparent on face of record - Suit for specific performance - Finding regarding limitation - In the judgment under review, conclusion drawn by the Court that Clause in agreement provided consequences only for the non-payment of the balance consideration by the purchaser and not for the non-production of certificates by the vendors was an error apparent on the face of record - Court had missed that the Clause provided a consequence for not producing documents within three months, which was cancellation of sale agreements - Conclusion that earlier an agreement was executed which did not materialise was an error apparent on the face of record - Said agreement was between original owners and vendors to which petitioner was not party - Court had erred in interpreting clauses in agreement to mean that a time was fixed for execution of sale agreements - Limitation would be governed by second part of Article 54 - Limitation had set in from the date when petitioner received reply refusing performance - Suit was filed within the period of limitation and was not barred by limitation as found by the Court. (Para 25 27 30 ....