9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation. 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of notice to the Corporation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation: The primary issue contested was whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff, a Co-operative Housing Society, claimed ownership of the land and buildings in question. The construction of the building "Divya Prabha" began in 1966 but remained incomplete. The plaintiff filed a suit in October 1994 in the City Civil Court, apprehending that the Municipal Corporation was considering permitting the completion of "Divya Prabha." During the pendency of this suit, the Municipal Corporation revalidated the building permission twice. The City Civil Court eventually ruled it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, leading to the return of the plaint and the filing of the present suit on May 18, 1999. The defendant No. 8 contended that the suit was barred by the law of limitation as the cause of action arose in October 1994, and the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period. The plaintiff argued for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the earlier suit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, claiming the suit was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. The court analyzed whether the subject matter of both suits was the same. It concluded that both suits challenged the defendants' entitlement to complete the construction of "Divya Prabha" and thus related to the same matter in issue. However, the court emphasized that the plaintiff must establish that the earlier suit was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to plead and prove that the earlier suit was instituted and prosecuted in good faith, as required by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court highlighted that the plaintiff did not lead any oral evidence to substantiate their claim of good faith and due diligence. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu, which emphasized that the burden of proving good faith and due diligence lies on the plaintiff. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet this burden, as there was no evidence showing that the suit was instituted with due care and attention. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefits of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the suit was barred by the law of limitation. 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of notice to the Corporation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act: The defendant No. 8 initially raised the issue of the suit's maintainability due to the absence of notice to the Corporation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. However, during the hearing, the defendant No. 8 did not press this issue, and it was answered accordingly. Conclusion: The court concluded that the suit was barred by the law of limitation as the plaintiff failed to establish that the earlier suit was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence. Consequently, the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Notice of Motion was also disposed of as it did not survive for consideration. The court directed that the ad-interim order passed in the Notice of Motion would continue to operate for four weeks from the date of the judgment.
|
