Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.74 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
In Popat and Kotecha Property v. State
Bank of India Staff Association,(2005) 7 SCC 510, the Apex
Court observed that Order 7 Rule 11(d) is not applicable in a case
where a question has to be decided on the basis of fact that the
suit is barred by limitation. In light of the aforesaid decisions, as
regards the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by
limitation, Art. 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 which
pertains to a suit for declaration of cancellation of the document, in
our opinion, the plaintiffs have an arguable case. This Court
cannot arrive at conclusion from the statements made in the plaint
that the suit is barred by limitation ignoring the specific case of
fraud pleaded in the plaint. The power exercised under order 7 rule
11 of rejecting plaint at very threshold is very drastic and therefore
before the Court can reject the plaint under O.7 R. 11(d) of the
CPC the Court is expected to be absolutely sure that a suit is
barred by any law from the averments made in the plaint and
taking such averments to be correct. If there is any doubt in the
mind of the Court, the benefit of doubt must be given to the
Page 54 of 57
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:15:13 IST 2022
C/FA/3827/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2022
plaintiffs. In our opinion, considering the peculiar facts of the case
it will not be proper to reject the plaint in this suit on the ground
that the suit is barred by limitation. There are few conflicting views
of various High Courts on the point as to whether or not the words
'barred by law' occurring in O. 7 R. 11(d) of the CPC would include
the suit being barred by limitation.
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
In T. Arivandandam vs.
T.V. Satyapal this Court observed as under:
Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company on 15 May, 2007
30. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon in the case
of Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company,
reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614, wherein it has was held as
follows:
Pawan Kumar vs Babulal Since Deceased Through Lrs on 2 April, 2019
32. We are of the view that the plaint could not have been
rejected on the ground that the suit is time-barred. The
plaintiff, in no uncertain terms, has pleaded in the plaint
that he came to know about the execution of the sale
deeds only when the defendants nos.7 and 8 filed their
written-statement Exh.86 in the Regular Civil Suit No.47
of 2011. The court below has gone to the extent of
ascertaining the veracity of such statement made in the
plaint. The court below imputes bad faith to the plaintiff
saying that the plaintiff intentionally has not stated the
date of filing of the said writ-statement. The entire
approach of the court below, in our view, is not correct. In
so far as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of
limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasize that
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. When it is
the specific case of the plaintiff that he came to know
about the sale deeds at the time when the written
statement came to be filed in the civil suit referred to
above, such averments may or may not be true, but if the
plaintiff succeeds in establishing the above averments,
the issue of limitation cannot be put against the plaintiff.