Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mahendra Kumar & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 4 May, 1987
It
is well settled in law that limitation need not be set up as a defence
under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act. It is the duty of the court to
find so. Duty is cast on the court to entertain a plaint to look into the
averments in the plaint in proper perspective and consider the plaint as
a whole to scan the essence of the cause of action and arrive at a
conclusion whether the cause of action as indicated and understood as
a bundle of facts giving rise to a grievance of the plaintiff saves the
limitation or not. Court may examine the point before admitting the
plaint. It is also pertinent to note that in the presence case, in the
impugned judgment of the lower appellate court reference has been
made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra
Kumar and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others: (1987)
3 SCC 265 in which, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it
was held that the counter-claim having been filed within three years
from the date of accrual of the right to sue, is within the period of
limitation as provided under Section 113 of the Limitation Act.
1