Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned advocate Mr.Kanabar has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v/s Sita Saran Bubna and others, reported in (2009)9 SCC 689.

(2) Bikoba Deora Gaikwad and others v/s Hirabhai HC-NIC Page 11 of 34 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:15 IST 2017 Marutirao Ghorgare and others, reported in (2008)8 SCC198.

10. In the case of Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan Prasad Bubna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the provisions of the CPC, observed in paragraphs 14 to 18.3 as under:

HC-NIC Page 15 of 34 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:16 IST 2017 "14. The Third Division of the Schedule to the said Act prescribes the periods of limitation for Applications. The Schedule does not contain any Article prescribing the limitation for an application for drawing up of a final decree. Article 136 prescribes the limitation for execution of any decree or order of civil court as 12 years when the decree or order becomes enforceable. Article 137 provides that for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in that division, the period of limitation is three years which would begin to run from the time when the right to apply accrues.

19. In the case of Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan Prasad Bubna (supra), the suit was decreed on 25.2.1964 directing a preliminary decree for partition to be drawn in regard to the 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the plots and final decree to be drawn up through the appointment of Commissioner for actual division of the plot by metes and bounds. The application was filed on 1.5.1987 for drawing up a final decree and the opposite party filed an application in the year 1991 for dropping the final decree proceedings as it was barred by limitation. Ultimately, the proceedings went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme HC-NIC Page 29 of 34 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:16 IST 2017 Court, after considering the provisions of the CPC and Limitation Act, observed and held that every applicant who seeks to enforce a right or seeks a remedy or relief on the basis of any cause of action in a civil Court, unless otherwise provided, will be subject to the law of limitation. But where an applicant does not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to grant any fresh relief based on a new cause of action but merely reminds or requests the Court to do its duty by completing the remaining part of the pending suit, there is no question of any limitation. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the aforesaid decision would not render any assistance to the present respondents-original petitioners.