Disposed

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another v. M/S Guru Dashmesh Rice Mills

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2022CR/91/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the lower court's order for condoning delay under Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963. It held the issue is entitling exclusion of time spent in prior mandatory injunction proceedings, directing the trial court to adjudicate properly.

What did the court decide?

Modified the order directing the trial Court to proceed and adjudicate on whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period spent in previous proceedings.

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

143

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Civil Revision No. 91 of 2021 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: 01.04.2022

¶5

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Guru Dashmesh Rice Mills

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

¶11

Present: Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Mr. Raman Goklaney, Advocate for the respondent(s).

¶13

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

¶14

The petitioner is a defendant in a suit for recovery of ₹17,41,883.35 ps. The first suit, filed by the plaintiffs for grant of mandatory injunction, was decided. While dismissing the regular second appeal, filed by the plaintiffs, the following observation was made on 28.02.2019:-

¶15

“The present suit is only for mandatory injunction. If permissible in law, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to initiate action for recovery of the amount from the agency which has sold the stock.

¶16

In view of the above, no ground is made out. Hence, all these three regular second appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, in terms thereof”.

¶17

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.04.06 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Civil Revision No. 91 of 2021 (O&M) 2

¶19

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1963 Act”). Section 14 of the 1963 Act enables the plaintiffs to seek exclusion of the period spent for bonafidely pursuing a matter in the Court without jurisdiction. The trial Court, while observing that the question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law, which cannot be decided summarily, has chosen to condone the delay, but subject to the final outcome of the matter in controversy.

¶20

The learned counsel representing the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the following issues, framed on appreciation of

¶21

evidence:-

¶22

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of ₹17,41,883.35 p. as prayed for? OPP

¶23

2. Whether suit of plaintiff is hopelessly time barred? OPD

¶24

3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

¶25

4. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts? OPD

¶26

5. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

¶27

6. Whether suit is also barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and deserves to be dismissed? OPD

¶28

7. Whether suit is not valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

¶29

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.04.06 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

Civil Revision No. 91 of 2021 (O&M) 3

¶31

8. Whether suit of plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD

¶32

9. Relief”.

¶33

After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties,

¶34

this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has failed to frame proper issues. The issue should be as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period spent while prosecuting the suit for grant of mandatory injunction, in another civil proceedings.

¶35

Obviously, Section 14 of the 1963 Act does not provide for condonation of delay.

¶36

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the order in question is modified. The trial Court will proceed with the case and while finally deciding the case, adjudicate upon all the issues framed.

¶37

With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.

¶38

The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶39

April 01, 2022 “DK”

¶40

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶41

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.04.06 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another v. M/S Guru Dashmesh Rice Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another v. M/S Guru Dashmesh Rice Mills

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

Upender Singh Vs Harinder Singh

M/S Jai Jawan Security Service Vs the Official Liquidator & Ors.

Dharam Pal (Since Deceased) Thru His Legal Representative Vs Krishan Chand Kohli

Manmohan Singh Vs Rajinder Kaur

Baldev Kaur Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Ravi Loyal & Anr. Vs the Presbyterian Church of Aotearao & Ors.