9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
- Appeal against the High Court's decision setting aside the Registrar's order adding respondents to claim cases. - High Court's decision based on the ground of limitation. - Appellant's contention of limitation not being raised earlier. - Justification of the Division Bench for not adding respondents based on limitation. - High Court's exercise of power under Art.226 in determining limitation. - Decision of the Supreme Court allowing the appeals on the ground of limitation. Analysis: 1. The appeals before the Supreme Court challenged the High Court's decision setting aside the Registrar's order adding respondents to the claim cases. The High Court based its decision on the ground of limitation, relying on O.1 R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and S.21 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant, a bank, claimed that the respondents were members who had failed to repay a borrowed sum, leading to the claim cases. The applications for impleading the respondents were allowed by the Registrar but challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution before the Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition. The High Court then disposed of the appeals, primarily focusing on the limitation issue. 2. The appellant contended that the issue of limitation was not raised earlier in the proceedings before the Registrar or the Single Judge. They argued that they could have provided evidence to show that the claim was within the limitation period if the issue had been raised. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that the Registrar's order was appealable under S.76 of the Act, suggesting that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition due to the alternative remedy available. 3. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel justified the Division Bench's decision, stating that the respondents should not have been added as parties due to the claim being time-barred. They argued that the appellant's cause of action arose before the limitation period, as per the available pleadings. The respondents emphasized that the Division Bench correctly considered the limitation plea, even though it was not raised earlier in the proceedings. 4. The Supreme Court found the limitation issue to be a mixed question of law and fact. The Court criticized the High Court for not determining the factual basis before exercising its power under Art.226 and engaging in a judicial review. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals solely on the ground of limitation, without delving into other raised questions. The Court clarified that the added respondents could still raise the limitation contention before the Registrar without reopening the order to add them as parties, emphasizing that no decision was made on the merits of the cases. 5. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, highlighting the importance of properly addressing the issue of limitation in legal proceedings. The Court's decision focused on procedural aspects and the High Court's jurisdiction under Art.226, underscoring the significance of raising relevant legal issues at the appropriate stages of litigation.
|
