HM Journal

Limitation arises from cause of action

Facts: Plaintiff claim to be legal representative of one Haji Mohammad who died in 1946. Accordingly, court receiver was appointed and he took all the possession of the deceased estate. Therefore, till the year 1963, lands were mutated behind the back of plaintiff and that plaintiff came to know of this fraud and collusion when they inspected records available with court receiver.

That in 1987, suit was filed but notice of motion taken out by defendant in 2003 that is after 16 years. The rejection of plaint under order 7, rule 11(d) was sought primarily on two grounds, namely, (a) that the suit filed in the year 1987 challenging the action of the competent authorities under the Act carried out way back in 1963 and 1964 was hopelessly barred by limitation; and (b) that in any case Section 85 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court.

City Civil Court and High Court held against the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.

Observation

We are dealing with a case where the plaintiffs assert in no uncertain terms that notices were never ordered to them nor served on them. Therefore, the answer to the issue regarding limitation, will depend upon the evidence with regard to the issuance and service of notice and the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not right in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation, especially in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Principle

A party, who never had any notice of a particular proceeding before a quasi­-judicial authority, is entitled to approach the Court upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings. Limitation cannot be put against such a party.

Judgment:

Appeal Allowed.

Link to the Judgment –

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.