Supreme Court: Time-barred lawsuits should be dismissed immediately.”

Last Updated on December 30, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC

On 20 December, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Bombay High Court on 26 April 2016.

Reiterating the legal position that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question for dismissing the suit thereon has to be decided after considering the evidence on record, Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that in cases where it is apparent from the plaint that the action is hopelessly barred, “the courts should not hesitate to grant relief and drive the parties back to the Trial”.

In this case, respondent no. 1 preferred a special civil suit for a declaration of his ownership and possession in view of the suit properties, stating that he is a direct descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj of the Bhonsale dynasty and has inherited vast tracts of land. all over Maharashtra from their ancestors.

The appellants sought dismissal of the said complaint by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. However, the court of first instance rejected the applicant’s request, stating that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law for which the parties will have to present evidence. This was then confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the order of the High Court, observed: “Again, we note that this is not a case where any forgery or fabrication has been committed, of which the plaintiff has recently come to know. The plaintiff and his predecessors have taken no steps to assert their title and rights in time.The alleged cause of action was also the creation of a fiction.However, the Court wrongly dismissed the petition filed by the appellants under Rule VII 11(d) of the CPC.

The High Court also erred in confirming the same, leaving the question of limitation open for consideration by the trial court after considering the evidence along with other issues without deciding the main issue on the basis of the contention of the respondent no. 1 in the Plaint as directed by Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. The purport and intent of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is only for courts to nip its seeds when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. Courts, by being reluctant, only do more harm to defendants by forcing them to undergo the test of leading evidence. Therefore, we believe that the complaint is likely to be dismissed at the threshold.’

The facts of the case

The High Court dismissed the application challenging the order passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, while the Trial Court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to dismiss the complaint. The appellant filed a civil suit against the appellants and the State of Maharashtra to obtain relief in their lands.

The appellant sought dismissal of the complaint because it was barred by the Limitation Act of 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for bringing an action for declaration, cancellation of an instrument or rescission of a contract. The appellant objected that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and must be assessed only in court proceedings.

The trial court dismissed the appellants’ application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The appellant then filed a civil petition for review with the High Court, which annulled the order of October 12 and returned the matter to the court of first instance for a new hearing. However, the court of first instance rejected the applicant’s request again, stating that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

What did the Supreme Court observe?

The court ruled that, according to settled law, only the statements in the plants and the documents attached to them are relevant when filing a motion to dismiss the complaint. In this regard, the Court observed: “The Court cannot look into the written statement or documents submitted by the defendants. Civil Courts including this Court cannot entertain competitive disputes at this stage.”

The court also stated that the claim of respondent no. 1 in the lawsuit are baseless and vague claims, as they were not supported by evidence. They were clearly designed to create a cause of action. He found that 3/4 of the property in question was sold by the petitioner to the predecessor of respondent no. 1 by a lawsuit in court in 1938, when respondent no. 1 didn’t even give birth. The remainder was subsequently conveyed by registered deed of sale in 1952.

On the grounds of statute of limitations, the court said: “The plaintiff claimed that he had acquired title to the real estate by the government orders of 1980 and 1984. Therefore, as a reasonable person, he should have taken the necessary steps to protect his interest.” If he fails to do so and creates a fictitious date for the action, the plaintiff may be ineligible on the ground of limitation… We have already decided that the plaintiff’s claim is barred and therefore the claim to possession is also barred, and consequently the relief from possession is hopelessly barred by the bar.’

Case Details: SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS Versus SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND OTHERS Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18977 of 2016)