Dismissed

Inderpal Singh v. Sudeep Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2013RSA/4810/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal after finding that the plea of limitation was not pressed below. The court held that since the question of limitation is a mixed fact and law, it could not be decided now without an affidavit proving the plea was urged, which was not filed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no merit found in submissions that the suit was time barred.

Inderpal Singh Vs Sudeep Kumar and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No.4810 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.07.2013

¶3

Inderpal Singh

¶4

......Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sudeep Kumar & ors.

¶7

......Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr. K.S. Godara, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

¶12

After considering the arguments raised, this Court passed the following order on 8.4.2013:

¶13

“Counsel for the defendant-appellant states that while filing the written statement, the plea regarding the suit being hopelessly barred by time was specifically taken. At the time of arguments also, first before the trial Court and, thereafter, before the first appellate Court such a plea was reiterated.

¶14

A perusal of the judgments passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court reveals that the plea of limitation was not taken up during the arguments. In fact, while dealing with issue No. 6 regarding limitation, the trial Court observed that counsel for the defendants did not press the same.

¶15

Counsel for the appellant states that the counsel who represented the appellant before the

¶16

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.4810 of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

trial Court and also the first appellate Court is ready and willing to state on oath that the plea of limitation was specifically argued and pressed.

¶20

Adjourned to 18.7.2013.

¶21

Necessary affidavit be filed.”

¶22

No affidavit has been filed in compliance of the aforesaid order. Counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that counsel of the appellants before the Courts below, has refused to file such an affidavit.

¶23

In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the submissions made that the suit was hopelessly time barred and therefore, the judgments and decrees of the Court below are liable to be set aside as it is well settled that the “question of limitation” is a “mixed question of law and facts” and therefore, the same cannot be decided in the Regular Second Appeal without raising such an issue before the Courts below. This view finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj

¶24

Nahar versus Nilima Mandal & anr. 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 855.

¶25

Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

¶26

Dismissed.

¶27

July 18, 2013 ps

¶28

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶29

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶30

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Inderpal Singh v. Sudeep Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderpal Singh v. Sudeep Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardees Kumar Vs Harinder Kumar

Jagdish Kumar Vs Rupinder Kumar & Ors.

Balbir Singh and Anr. Vs Sunny Jain

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tara Devi and Ors.

Harchand Singh Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs Sikh Gurudwara Judicial Commission and Ors.