9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plea of limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Whether the appellants are entitled to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Plea of Limitation as a Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction under Section 9A of CPC: The appellants contended that the bar of limitation should not be regarded as an objection to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. They argued that the term 'jurisdiction' in Section 9A must be construed harmoniously with Section 9, CPC, and cited various judgments, including *Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey* where it was held that an objection to limitation is not an objection as to jurisdiction. The appellants also pointed out that the larger bench judgment in *Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav* pertains to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC, and thus has a different context. The respondents, however, argued that a question of limitation is a question of jurisdiction and ousts the court's jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits. They cited several cases, including *Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav* where the Supreme Court held that a plea of limitation concerns the jurisdiction of the court. They also referenced *Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.* where it was held that Section 9A applies when a suit is barred by any statute, including the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the plea of limitation is indeed a plea of law that concerns the jurisdiction of the court. The court referenced *Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav*, which held that a plea of limitation is a plea of law that concerns the jurisdiction of the court. The court also noted that Section 3 of the Limitation Act mandates the court to dismiss the suit if it is barred by limitation, thus affecting the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the plea of limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the CPC. 2. Entitlement to Claim the Benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act: The appellants contended that their suit was within time even without the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. They argued that their causes of action arose from the revalidation certificates issued by Respondent No. 7 and alleged acts of trespass, and thus Article 58 of the Limitation Act did not apply. They also argued that they had prosecuted their suit in good faith and with due diligence in the Bombay City Civil Court. The respondents argued that the appellants cannot avail of the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. They contended that the amendment to the plaint was an afterthought and not substantiated by any oral evidence. They cited several cases, including *Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu*, which held that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the case is covered by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court observed that the appellants had not led any oral evidence to substantiate their claim that the suit was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. The court referenced *Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu*, which held that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the case is covered by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the appellants cannot claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act by merely amending the plaint without adducing any evidence. Conclusion: The court found no error or illegality in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.01.2006. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
