Limitation Act 1963, Article 54 - CPC, O.VII R.11(d) – Limitation - It is fairly well settled that, so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is a mixed question of fact and law - It is true that limitation can be the ground for rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under O.VII R.11(d) of the CPC, equally, it is well settled that for the purpose of deciding application filed under O.VII R.11 only averments stated in the plaint alone can be looked into, merits and demerits of the matter and the allegations by the parties cannot be gone into - In cases falling in second limb of Article 54 finding can be recorded only after recording evidence. *(2018)2 SCe@Journal 1898*
Limitation Act 1963, Article 54 - The period of limitation is three years from the date of refusal - In the suits for specific performance falling in the second limb of the Article, period of three years is to be counted from the date when it had come to the notice of the plaintiff that performance is refused by the defendants - In cases falling in second limb of Article 54 finding can be recorded only after recording evidence – CPC o 7, r. 11.. *(2018)2 SCe@Journal 1898*
@RS. 1000/- PER ANNUM
Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.65 - Limitation - Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession – Suit property, was the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 between the parties before the City Magistrate wherein both the parties were claiming their right, title and interest including asserting their possession over the suit property against each other - City Magistrate vide his order dated 23.12.1966 attached the suit property - Plaintiffs, filed civil suit on 19.12.1978 for claiming a declaration of their title on the suit property, injunction and possession against the defendants - Since the suit was for declaration, permanent injunction and possession, Article 65 of the Limitation Act was applicable, which provides a limitation of 12 years for filing the suit which is to be counted from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiffs – Order of High Court dismissing suit on ground that suit was filed for declaration and injunction only, therefore governed by period of 3 years limitation, erroneous and set aside. (2018)2 SCeJ 1628
*(2018)2 SCeJournal 1245 (decided 11th July, 2018)*
Limitation Act, S. 5 - LPA - Appellants were not made parties to the original writ petitions and became aggrieved by the order passed by the writ Court (Single Judge) in the writ petitions - A case for condonation of delay in filing the appeals was made out - Sufficient cause for condonation of delay within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2018)1 SCeJ 571
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th March, 2018
(i) Limitation Act, Section 5 - Appeal before High court was delayed by 554 days - One cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer good law.
(ii) Limitation Act, Section 5 - Appeal before High court was delayed by 554 days - Cause pleaded by appellant therein was relating to his prolonged illness during the period in question - Appellant also filed medical documents to support the factum of his illness during the relevant time - Appellant is an old man and in his late sixties - It is also not in dispute that he did suffer heart disease during the relevant period and later he was down with dengue fever and that he was hospitalized to get medical treatment for these two ailments for a long time during that period - It is also not in dispute that he was mentally disturbed due to disputes going on in his family and was not able to attend to his day-to-day duties due to his old age and prolonged ailments - High Court found as a fact that the appellant did suffer these ailments - High Court should have taken liberal view in the matter and held the cause shown by the appellant as "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and accordingly should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.