Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, H.K. SEMA, JJ.
PADMANATH GOSWAMI - APPELLANT
VERSUS
BANAMALI DAS ALIAS BANORAM DAS - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3343 OF 2003,
DECIDED ON APRIL 10, 2003
LIMITATION - APPEAL AGAINST SUIT DECREE - The court reversed the judgment of the assistant district judge and restored that of the trial court, but failed to address the question of the suit being barred by limitation. The High Court held that the question of limitation was irrelevant and academic, despite it being a substantial issue between the parties. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded the appeal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the High Court to decide the question of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner was decreed by the Munsif, but the judgment and decree were set aside by the assistant district judge. The High Court reversed the judgment of the assistant district judge and restored that of the trial court. The defendant in the title suit appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court failed to address the question of the suit being barred by limitation, deeming it irrelevant and academic. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded the appeal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the High Court to decide the question of limitation.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the law of limitation and the relevant article of the Limitation Act. The High Court's failure to address this issue was a key concern.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized that the question of limitation was not irrelevant and academic, as held by the High Court, and directed the High Court to expeditiously decide the second appeal, including the question of limitation.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the second appeal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the High Court to decide the question of limitation. The parties were directed to appear before the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court.
ORDER
1. LEAVE GRANTED.
2. THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEING TITLE SUIT NO. 112 OF 1986 WAS DECREED BY THE MUNSIF. AN OBJECTION TO THE SUIT BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE PETITIONER-DEFENDANT. IN APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED ASSISTANT DISTRICT JUDGE, BARPETA HAD SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE MUNSIF AND THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED. THAT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE HIGH COURT IN SECOND APPEAL C NO. 62 OF 1993. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT JUDGE HAS BEEN REVERSED AND THAT OF THE TRIAL COURT RESTORED. THE DEFENDANT IN THE TITLE SUIT IS BEFORE US.
3. THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF THE SUIT BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION OR NOT. IT HAS HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION IS IRRELEVANT AND ACADEMIC. ONE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS THAT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RELEVANT ARTICLE OF THE LIMITATION ACT. AS ABOVESTATED, THE TRIAL COURT ANSWERED THE LIMITATION ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT ANSWERED THAT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT. ONLY AFTER COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUIT WAS WITHIN LIMITATION, THE COURT COULD GO INTO THE QUESTION OF THE E STATUS OF THE KHATIAN, THAT IS, WHETHER IT WAS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION COULD BE SAID TO BE IRRELEVANT AND ACADEMIC AS HELD BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT.
4. WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION EITHER ON THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION OR OTHER POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 62 OF 1993, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT AND REMAND THE SECOND F APPEAL FOR FRESH DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT WOULD ALSO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION. WE REQUEST THE HIGH COURT TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DECIDE THE SECOND APPEAL.
5. THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ON 2-5-2003.
6. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
