Allowed

Indraman Sahu v. Dushyant Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2023CR/58/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision against an order dismissing a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) for limitation without framing issues, holding that the issue was a mixed question of law and facts requiring evidence and directing the trial court to frame such issues.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned order set aside; trial court directed to frame issues including limitation and consider evidence if required.

Indraman Sahu Vs Dushyant Sahu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Civil Revision No. 58 of 2023

¶5

Indraman Sahu, son of Late Jivrakhan Sahu, aged about 65 years, Resident of Village-G. Jamgaon, Tahsil-Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG)

¶6

---- Applicant /Plaintiff

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dushyant Sahu, son of Late Govind Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village-G-Jamgaon, Tahsil-Kurud, DistrictDhamtari (CG)

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG)

¶10

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶11

For Applicant	: Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

¶12

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

11/09/2023

¶15

The applicant has filed the instant civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 4.2.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.35-A/2019 whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC by respondent/defendant No.1 has been allowed and consequently, the plaint has been rejected.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law as the learned trial Court failed to consider that the issue of limitation is a mixed question

¶17

¶18

of law and facts and dismissed the suit of the applicant without framing any issue in this regard. Placing reliance on the order dated 28.4.2023 of this Court passed in CR No.73/2022 in the matter Smt. Seerin Singh Vs. Pushram, it is argued that since the plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts requiring recording of evidence, therefore, the trial Court, after framing preliminary issue on the point of limitation, ought to have proceeded to decide the question of limitation at the appropriate stage.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

It is clear from the impugned order dated 4.2.2023 that the learned trial Court allowed the application of the respondent/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC and dismissed the plaint on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has filed copy of plaint with this petition. In para 8 of the plaint, the petitioner has pleaded about limitation. Respondent/defendant No.1 denied this fact in his written statement. Thus, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that this question is a mixed question of law and facts and for adjudication of the same, recording of evidence is required.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled legal position on the issue of question of limitation, the revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is

¶23

¶24

hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to frame issues on the basis of pleadings of both the parties including the issue of limitation. If the issue of limitation is requiring evidence, then the same shall be considered at the appropriate stage.

¶25

The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17^th October, 2023.

Sd/

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

Khan

Indraman Sahu v. Dushyant Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indraman Sahu v. Dushyant Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratima Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bal Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Panjwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Soni Vs The Managing Director

Smt. Savita Meshram Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Smt. Durga Bai Deshmukh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.