SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---It is not necessary to go into all facts in detail. It might suffice to say that according to the appellants, the respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell a particular property to the appellant but in May, 1993 inducted the respondent No. 2 into that property. The appellants filed some suits for declaratory and injunctive relief. It is evident from the record that the appellants have been trying to move various Courts seeking different relief and in most cases plaints were returned on the ground that the Court in question had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. In any event, the suit before the learned Single Judge seeking specific performance of the contract was filed in 1997. The respondent raised objections by way of an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And the plaint was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was barred under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.
2. Mr. Muhammad Younus learned counsel for the appellants was unable to dispute the fact that induction of another person into a property agreed to be sold to the appellants amounted to a clear refusal on the part of the respondent No. 1 to perform his obligation under the contract. The suit for specific performance therefore, had to be filed within three years from the date of such refusal. Learned counsel was also unable to show that such relief was sought in the earlier suit filed before Civil Court so as to claim the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine alongwith listed application.