This order dismisses a Civil Revision Petition challenging the lower court’s refusal to reject a plaint on limitation grounds before evidence. The appellate court finds no error in deferring the decision until after a trial.
CRP dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of suit within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3453 of 2014
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 02.09.2014 passed in I.A.No.136 of 2014 in O.S.No.22 of 2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal wherein the Court below has dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that though the agreement of sale was executed in the year 1991, suit is filed in the year 2009 and the suit is barred by limitation. But the trial Court without appreciating the same, rejected the application filed by the petitioner erroneously. He also contends that suit for specific performance has to be filed within three (03) years from the date fixed for enforcement of the agreement as per Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963. Further he contends that since the suit is filed belatedly, it is barred by limitation and the same has to be rejected.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the same can only be considered after considering the evidence of both parties and after full fledged trial of the suit.
The plaintiff has made certain assertions in the plaint regarding limitation. Unless the evidence is led, the same cannot be decided at this stage. More so, the suit is filed in the year 2009 and now the same has come up for trial. At this stage, the application is filed. Since already the suit has come up for trial it is for the Court below to decide on merits after evidence is let in by both sides.
In view of the same, I do not see any error in the order passed by the Court below for exercising jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, CRP is dismissed. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
Date: 15-10-2014 dv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can quash the lower court’s rejection of an application to reject the plaint on limitation grounds without examining evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC based solely on alleged limitation without full trial.
Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by refusing to decide on the limitation bar ex parte.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner/Defendant
Plaintiff/Appellate
A. RajasHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
