Dismissed

Dilip Roy v. Amodi Devi

Jharkhand HC10 May 2019C.R./18/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the revision appeal for want of merit. The Court held there was no illegality in the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to dismiss a title suit for limitation, noting the suit involved recovery of possession attracting a different limitation period.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed holding the impugned order of the Trial Court was not erroneous.

Dilip Roy Vs Amodi Devi — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.R. No.18 of 2016

Dilip Roy

..... Petitioner

Versus

Amodi Devi

…. Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate -----

¶9

10/10.5.2019 Heard learned counsel for the defendant petitioner and learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party.

¶10

The defendant petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.1.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 2^nd , Dhanbad, in Title Suit No.113 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the defendant petitioner under Order 7 Rule XI of the C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation, was rejected by the Trial Court below, stating that the same had been filed at a belated stage.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no time limit prescribed for filing the application under Order 7 Rule XI of the C.P.C., and once the application was filed by the defendant, the same could not have been dismissed, only stating that it was filed at a belated stage, rather the same ought to have been decided on merits.

¶12

The impugned order shows that the merits of the case have also been discussed by the Trial Court below, as it is apparent from the impugned order itself, that the case of the defendant was that the plaintiff got the cause of action on 22.12.2005, when R.S. Khatian had been published in the name of the defendant's father, and subsequently on 15.2.2007 and 27.08.2007, but since the suit was filed in the year 2014, after a lapse of about seven years, the suit was fit to be dismissed, as it was barred by limitation, as the period of limitation prescribed for filing such suits is three years.

¶13

On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff is that she had filed the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property, and alternatively, recovery of the possession of the suit property, since the defendant was encroaching the same. In view of the fact that there was prayer for recovery of possession also, the limitation prescribed would not be covered by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, rather the limitation would be 12 years under Article 64 of the Limitation Act.

¶14

-2-

¶15

According to the case of the plaintiff, as discussed in the impugned order, it prima facie appears that since there was prayer for recovery of the possession of the suit property as well, the suit was not barred by limitation and accordingly, there can be no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below, rejecting the application of the defendant, filed under Order 7 Rule XI of the C.P.C., though the order may not be very happily worded. The cause of action, according to the cases of the respective parties, is a disputed question of fact, which could be decided after framing the issues, and based upon the evidence that may be brought on record during trial.

¶16

There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 19.1.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 2^nd , Dhanbad, in Title Suit No.113 of 2014, worth any interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶17

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

R.Kumar

Dilip Roy v. Amodi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Roy v. Amodi Devi

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

Pankaj Kumar Pahari Vs Sukumar Goswami and Anr.

Chand Mahto Alias Sudama Mahto Alias Sudam Mato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Sharma Alias Amit Sharma Alias Titu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hafizur Rahman Vs Nayeem Akhtar Siddiqui And Ors.

Shekhar Kumar Roy Vs Jitendra Nath Dey and Ors.

Santoshi Devi Vs Mahesh Ravidas