As per case facts, an agreement for sale of property was made, contingent on the dismissal of two pending suits and vacation of an interim injunction. Plaintiffs (purchasers) were given ... possession of a godown. After the dismissal of the suits, but before complete legal clarity, the defendants (sellers) sent a letter suggesting a delay in registration until "things become more clear". Later, the defendants allegedly sold the property to other parties and refused to execute the sale deed for the plaintiffs, leading to a suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed the suit, deeming it within limitation, but the High Court reversed this, holding it time-barred as it found a fixed date for performance.The question arose whether the original agreement fixed a definite date for performance under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, or if the subsequent communication from the defendants extended this period, thus shifting the limitation trigger to when the plaintiffs had notice of refusal to perform.Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that while an initial fixed date existed, the defendants' subsequent letter requesting forbearance for registration effectively extended the time for performance, making it an agreement without a fixed date for limitation purposes. The plaintiffs' forbearance was deemed acceptance of this extension. Therefore, the limitation period commenced when the plaintiffs received notice of the refusal to perform, and the suit filed within fifteen days of this notice was within limitation. The Court allowed the appeals, affirming the trial court's decree for specific performance.