9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 823 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - plaint came to be rejected by the trial Court under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation as it was filed beyond the period of three years prescribed in Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1963. HELD THAT - It is well established position that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further the factum of suit being barred by limitation ordinarily would be a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is ruled out. In the present case the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed that its claim was being processed by the Regional Office and the Regional Office would be taking appropriate decision at the earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the Senior Manager of the Bank dated 8.5.2002 followed by another letter dated 19.9.2002 to the effect that the action taken by the Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This firm response from the respondent-Bank could trigger the right of the appellant to sue the respondent-Bank. Moreover the fact that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28.11.2003 and again on 7.1.2005 and then filed the suit on 23.2.2005 is also invoked as giving rise to cause of action. Reverting to the argument that exchange of letters or correspondence between the parties cannot be the basis to extend the period of limitation for the view taken hitherto the same need not be dilated further. Inasmuch as having noticed from the averments in the plaint that the right to sue accrued to the appellant on receiving letter from the Senior Manager dated 8.5.2002 and in particular letter dated 19.9.2002 and again on firm refusal by the respondents vide Advocate s letter dated 23.12.2003 in response to the legal notice sent by the appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on the follow up legal notice on 7.1.2005 the plaint filed in February 2005 would be well within limitation. Considering the former events of firm response by the respondents on 8.5.2002 and in particular 19.9.2002 the correspondence ensued thereafter including the two legal notices sent by the appellant even if disregarded the plaint/suit filed on 23.2.2005 would be within limitation in terms of Article 113. In the fact situation of the present case rejecting the plaint in question under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC cannot be sustained - this appeal succeeds and the plaint stands restored to the file of the trial Court to its original number for being proceeded in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 2. Applicability of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Determination of the accrual of the right to sue. 4. Interpretation of "when the right to sue accrues" under Article 113. 5. The relevance of correspondence between parties in extending the limitation period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC: The trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation. This decision was affirmed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that Order VII Rule 11 allows the Court to reject a plaint if it is evident from the averments that the suit is barred by any law, including the law of limitation. However, the Court emphasized that the entire plaint must be read as a whole and not selectively. 2. Applicability of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The appellant argued that the suit was within limitation under Articles 2, 3, and 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the trial Court, first appellate Court, and the High Court proceeded on the basis that Article 113 was applicable. Article 113 provides a limitation period of three years for suits for which no specific limitation period is provided, starting from the date when the right to sue accrues. 3. Determination of the accrual of the right to sue: The central question was whether the right to sue accrued when the appellant first noticed the overcharging in July 2000 or later when the appellant received firm refusals from the respondent-Bank. The appellant contended that the cause of action accrued upon the Bank's refusal communicated through letters dated 19.9.2002 and 3.6.2003, and after the final legal notice on 7.1.2005. The Supreme Court highlighted that the plaint must be analyzed in its entirety to determine the accrual of the right to sue. 4. Interpretation of "when the right to sue accrues" under Article 113: The Supreme Court noted that Article 113 uses the expression "when the right to sue accrues," which is distinct from expressions in other Articles like "when the right to sue first accrues." This distinction implies that the right to sue may accrue at different points of time. The Court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that the right to sue under Article 113 accrues when the cause of action arises, not necessarily when it first arises. 5. The relevance of correspondence between parties in extending the limitation period: The trial Court rejected the appellant's contention that the cause of action accrued upon the rejection of representations by the respondent-Bank. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the appellant's continued correspondence with the Bank and the Bank's responses, including the final refusal letters, were relevant in determining the accrual of the right to sue. The Court concluded that the plaint filed in February 2005 was within the limitation period, considering the firm refusals by the Bank in 2002 and 2003. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the trial Court, first appellate Court, and the High Court, which had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The Court restored the plaint to the file of the trial Court for further proceedings, keeping all contentions open, including the issue of limitation to be decided along with other issues based on the plea taken in the written statement and evidence produced by the parties. The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
|
