Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing Vimal Chand Jain vs Sushila Rani Bhavnani & Ors on 8 April, 2016

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur And Others on 1 June, 2020

(v). Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1903, the period of limitation is to be computed for filing a suit from the date when right to sue has first arisen and there is an infringement or a clear/unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Reliance can be placed upon State of Punjab vs. Bal Kishan, 2006(12) SCC 709; Rajinder vs. Harbans Singh, 2018 SCC Online Bombay 549; Shri Jahangir vs. Smt. Maureen, 2017(6) MhLJ 270; Vimal Chand Jiain vs. Sushila Rani, 2016 SCC Online Delhi 2332; Amarjit Kaur vs. DDA, 2014 SCC online Delhi 1097; Rajabhai Kasnabhai vs. Ismail Bhai, 2014 SCC online Gujarat 14547; Prem Narayan vs. Sudama Lal, 2014 SCC Online MP 2583; Mukesh Kapil vs. Parag P Tripathi, 2013(15) R.C.R. (Civil) 812; MMTC Ltd. vs. Raj Rani Gulati, 2013 SCC online Delhi 4906; Ram Gupta vs. ICICI Ltd., 2012 SCC online Delhi 4334; Throw Ball Federation vs. Union of India, 2012 SCC online Delhi 4167; Shashi Bhushan vs. Sushil Kumar Pal, 2018 SCC online Calcutta 528 of 547 ::: Downloaded on - 01-06-2020 21:03:45 ::: RSA Nos.2006, 1418 & 2176 of 2018 (O&M) 529 5627; Sharan Pal Kaur Anand vs. Parduman Singh Chandok, 2016 SCC online Delhi 2434; Trilok Singh vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, 1996(8) SCC 367; TL Madhu Krishna vs. Lalita Ramchandra Rao, 1997(2) SCC 611; MV X-press Annapurana vs. Gitanjali Woolens Private Limited, 2011(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 2403; Shri Lal vs. Mangu Lal, 2013, SCC online MP 7631; Atma Ram vs. Charanjit Singh, 2016 SCC online Punjab and Haryana 3774; Abdul Hussain vs. Smt. Kalsum, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 200 (Punjab); Sunder Lal vs. Kishan Lal, 2014(39) R.C.R. (Civil) 547; Salinder Kaur vs. Kundan Singh, 2004(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 483; Vishwambhar vs. Laxmi Narayan, 2001(6) SCC 163; Venkatagiriyappa vs. Kamalamma, 2010 SCC online Karnataka 2687; Kirpal Singh vs. Jitender Pal Kaur, 2017 SCC online Punjab and Haryana 302; Satnam Singh vs. Dev Kaur, 2015(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 365; State of Gujarat vs. Kothari and Associates, 2016(14) SCC 761; Dhanna Singh vs. Singhar Singh, 2015(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 365; Mangli vs. Gaya Prashad, AIR 1947 Audh 235; M/s J.K. Luxmi Cements Ltd. vs. M/s Namit Plastic (P) Ltd., 2009 SCC online Delhi 162; Nina Garments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unitech Ltd., 2012(132) DRJ 360; Girdhari Lal Houshi Lal vs. Rannoo Raghoji Marathe, AIR 1944 Nagpur 37; Lala Uttam 529 of 547 ::: Downloaded on - 01-06-2020 21:03:45 ::: RSA Nos.2006, 1418 & 2176 of 2018 (O&M) 530 Chand vs. Mosammat Thakur Devi, AIR 1922 Lahore, 39 and Jago vs. Mahadev, AIR 1921 Nagpur 94. On the strength of aforesaid precedents, it can be appreciated that the period for limitation for filing suit for declaration would be three years from the date, when the cause of action to sue first accrues. Plaintiff has sought a decree for declaration and the suit ought to have been filed within three years of right to sue first accrued. The right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff on acquiring knowledge regarding Will as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The crucial date for ascertaining the limitation is the date on which the application for amendment was allowed. Suit challenging the Will filed beyond the period of limitation of three years is barred by limitation. Once the cause of action starts running, it cannot be stopped. Any excuse like unavailability of certified copy of the document has no legal basis and the same in any case cannot extend the period of limitation. Article 58 of the Limitation Act would apply to the amended plaint in which the plaintiff sought to add the relief of declaration of title to the already existing prayer. Regarding amendment of plaint, doctrine of relation back would not apply for the reason that the Court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances in the present case to warrant the 530 of 547 ::: Downloaded on - 01-06-2020 21:03:45 ::: RSA Nos.2006, 1418 & 2176 of 2018 (O&M) 531 doctrine of relation back applying so that a legal right that had accrued to the defendant should be taken away.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 238 - Cited by 1 - R M Singh - Full Document
1