Partly allowed

K K Prabhakaran v. M/S Hero Exports and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Oct 2009CR/4738/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed revision and modified impugned order directing trial Court to treat limitation as a preliminary issue under CPC instead of rejecting the plaint, requiring parties to submit limited pleadings and lead evidence on that specific issue within 8 months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; trial Court directed to treat limitation as preliminary issue; parties to submit limited pleadings and evidence; decision within 8 months.

K K Prabhakaran Vs M/S Hero Exports… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

CR No.4738 of 2008

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

Civil Revision No.4738 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 20.10.2009

¶6

¶7

K.K. Prabhakaran . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

M/s. Hero Exports and others . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. P.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

Mr. Munish Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.1

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT J.(ORAL)

¶20

1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.3, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereby the petitioner prayed for rejection of plaint of the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff, being barred by limitation.

¶21

2). The petitioner-defendant No.3’s precise case appears to be that even if the averments made in the plaint are taken on their face value or assumed to be correct, the suit is still barred by limitation. The respondent-plaintiff, however, strenuously dispute the aforesaid plea.

¶22

3). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts that the fate of the suit, in a way, can be decided by

¶23

¶24

CR No.4738 of 2008

¶25

resolving as to whether or not the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is within limitation, therefore, I am of the considered view that though the trial Court is right in refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, however, the objection raised by the petitioner-defendant No.3 falls within the ambit of Order 14 Rule 2(ii)(b) CPC which enables the trial Court to treat the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue.

¶26

4}. Suffice it to say that where the issues, both of law and facts, arise in the suit and the Court is of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of on the issue of law, the Court is empowered to treat such an issue as a preliminary issue. Whether or not there is a bar created by law against the maintainability of the suit, is one of the issue(s) that can always be treated as a ‘preliminary issue’.

¶27

5). For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed in part; impugned order dated 19.08.2008 is modified and the learned trial Court is directed to treat the issue as to “whether the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is barred by limitation?” as preliminary issue. The parties shall be at liberty to submit their limited pleadings qua the above-stated issue, at this stage and lead their respective evidences(s). The Civil Court shall make an endeavour to decide the preliminary issue as early as possible and preferably within 8 months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶28

6). Ordered accordingly.

¶29

7). Dasti.

¶30

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶31

20.10.2009 vishal shonkar

¶32

CR No.4738 of 2008

¶33

K K Prabhakaran v. M/S Hero Exports and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K K Prabhakaran v. M/S Hero Exports and Ors.

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

Madan Mohan Manchanda Vs Raj Dularia

Gurmail Singh and Anr. Vs Director, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Pb. and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Kaushalya Devi

Jim Health Club & Anr. Vs M/S Maharaja Complex & Anr.

Ram Swarup Vs Ram Swarup and Others

Sultan and Ors. Vs Murti Shri Surya Narain Ji Maharaj and Ors.