Allowed

Synergy Steels Limited v. Lakra Oil Trading Company

Delhi HC17 Feb 2016CM(M)/118/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special leave petition challenged an impugned order that disposed of a limitation issue without hearing the defendant. The High Court set aside the order, directing the Trial Court to re-cast issues and frame an additional issue on limitation since a specific defense had been raised.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.8.2014 set aside; Trial Court directed to frame additional issue on limitation.

Synergy Steels Limited Vs Lakra Oil Trading… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 118/2015 & C.M. No.2474/2015

¶3

SYNERGY STEELS LIMITED

¶4

..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.D.K.Kaushik and Mr. Desh Raj, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

LAKRA OIL TRADING COMPANY

¶7

..... Respondent Through Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 17.02.2016

¶11

Impugned order dated 05.8.2014 is set aside. This order was passed on the application filed by the defendant XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking an issue of limitation to be framed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to an earlier order passed by the Trial Court dated 05.02.2013 wherein the issue of limitation was considered and disposed of. This Court notes that on 05.02.2013 the defendant was not represented. Summons of the suit were in fact issued on that date. The defendant was never heard and the question of limitation was decided in the absence of the defendant.

¶13

The issues were framed on 17.10.2013. Present application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC came to be filed in the month of August, 2014

¶14

wherein the question of limitation had been prayed for.

¶15

Submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that specific defence in the written statement qua the issue of limitation had been taken but the Trial Court had not framed any issue on the limitation. This Application was not considered by the Trial Court in the correct perspective.

¶16

This submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has force. When there was a specific defense of limitation raised by the defendant in his written statement it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have framed an issue on limitation. The earlier order dated 05.02.2013 was passed prior to the filing of the written statement by the defendant and as such it has not dealt with the arguments of the defendant which had qua this issue and to be decided in view of the specific defence taken by the defendant.

¶17

The matter is at the stage of evidence of the plaintiff. The Trial Court shall re-cast the issues and frame an additional issue which reads as under:

¶18

“Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not within the period of Limitation? OPD”

¶19

With these directions petition disposed of.

¶20

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 17, 2016 ndn

Synergy Steels Limited v. Lakra Oil Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Synergy Steels Limited v. Lakra Oil Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dhapo @ Longshree & Ors.

Lt Col Attar Singh (Retd) Vs Prakhar Prabhakar Gupta & Anr.

Ram Kumar Vs Har Mahesh Kumar & Ors.

Mritunjay Kapur & Ors. Vs Gurjit Kaur

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sherpal & Ors.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sherpal & Ors.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajender & Ors.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajender & Ors.

Manoj & Anr. Vs Ram Prakash Kapil

Ram Kumar Vs Har Mahesh Kumar & Ors.

Mritunjay Kapur & Ors. Vs Gurjit Kaur

Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs Daya & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Jagmohan Singh Brar & Ors.