2022 (10) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

Time limitation for initiation of suit - land dispute - issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue Under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure or not - Whether a larger period of limitation of 12 years would be available to the Plaintiffs to bring in a suit by virtue of application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1968, as contended by the Appellant and in the facts and circumstances obtained in this case? - Whether Article 17 or Article 65 of the Act got any application, as contended by the Appellants, in view of the plaint averments, in case Article 136 of the Act is found inapplicable? HELD THAT - A perusal of Article 136 of the Limitation Act would reveal the indubitable position that it applies only when an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed - In the instant such a stage for application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act had not reached and, in troth, the question involved is relatable only to the time restriction for initiating legal proceedings to seek the alleged legal right. In the said circumstances, the inevitable conclusion can only be that Article 136 got no application in the case on hand and as such the Appellants could not claim for a larger period of limitation of 12 years. The findings of the Trial Court with respect to preliminary issue of limitation are based on the relevant dates revealed from the pleadings of the Plaintiffs in the plaint itself. True that in the plaint it is repeatedly alleged that the relinquishment deed was obtained fraudulently by the 5th Respondent. However, conspicuously its date was not mentioned - it is very much clear from the plaint averments that the Relinquishment Deed is anterior to the date of letter of intimation to the 5th Respondent (08.03.1991) and obviously, the date of objection against the same was firstly preferred by deceased Nahar Singh viz., 05.04.1991. Evidently, the aforesaid two dates specifically mentioned in the plaint were taken into account by the Trial Court as also by the First Appellate Court and the High Court in the matter of consideration of the question whether the suit was barred by limitation. In the absence of any successful challenge against the validity of the said Relinquishment Deed by making proper prayer in an appropriate proceedings, and that too within the prescribed period of limitation, the conclusion and finding of the First Appellate Court, cannot be said to be perverse or illegal as there can be no doubt with respect to the position that consideration of validity of a relinquishment deed and consideration of the period of limitation with reference to the same are different and distinct. In the case on hand in view of the nature of the finding on the preliminary issue and the consequential consideration of the suit in terms of Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) and taking note of the fact that the suit do not survive after such consideration, there are no reason to consider the contention of the Appellants with reference to Order VII Rule 11. Thus, there is absolutely no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below warranting interference in invocation of the power Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)?
2. Whether a larger period of limitation of 12 years would be available to the Plaintiffs by virtue of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
3. Whether Article 17 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act applies to the case?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Preliminary Issue of Limitation under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of CPC
The Court examined whether the issue of limitation could be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the CPC. The Appellants contended that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and should not have been decided preliminarily. They argued that if it were to be considered preliminarily, it should have been under Rule 11, Order VII of the CPC, potentially leading to the rejection of the plaint under Clause (d) of Rule 11. The Respondents argued that the foundational facts for determining the nature of the suit and the starting point of limitation were available in the plaint itself, making it permissible to decide the limitation issue preliminarily. The Court referred to precedents, including Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties and Mongin Realty and Build Well Private Limited v. Manik Sethi, which established that limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue if it is based on admitted facts. The Court concluded that the Trial Court's approach was permissible and legal under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) of the CPC.

2. Larger Period of Limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act
The Appellants contended that a larger period of limitation of 12 years should be available under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. The Court found this contention to be without merit, noting that Article 136 applies only to applications for execution of decrees or orders of Civil Courts. Since the case at hand did not involve such an application, Article 136 was inapplicable. The Court referred to the decision in Bikoba Deora Gaikwad and Ors. v. Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare and Ors., which clarified the scope of Article 136. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Appellants could not claim a 12-year limitation period.

3. Applicability of Articles 17 and 65 of the Limitation Act
The Appellants argued that Articles 17 or 65 of the Limitation Act should apply. The Court found these arguments to be irrelevant in the context of the case. The Trial Court had determined the preliminary issue of limitation based on the specific dates mentioned in the plaint, which indicated that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs had not sought to set aside the Relinquishment Deed within the limitation period, despite being aware of its alleged fraudulent nature since 1991. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the suit was barred by limitation, emphasizing that the nature of the suit was declaratory and the relief sought was consequential to the declaratory relief.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the judgments of the lower courts and concluded that the Appellants' contentions regarding the applicability of Articles 17, 65, and 136 of the Limitation Act were without merit. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.