2010 Supreme(SC) 896

2010 (7) Supreme 79
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Raghbinder Singh — Appellant
versus
Bant Kaur & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.4017 of 2003
Decided on : 22-9-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
A suit of a civil nature disclosing a cause of action even if filed before the date on which the plaintiff became actually entitled to sue and claim the relief founded on such cause of action is not to be necessarily dismissed for such reason. The question of suit being premature does not go to the root of jurisdiction of the court.

Headnote:Premature Suit-Maintainability-Suit for damages filed by widow and children of deceased claiming a sum of rupees two lakhs as damages from accused persons who, allegedly had killed deceased in an occurrence that took place at village - Civil proceedings for damages instituted by the widow and the children of the deceased moved much faster than the criminal proceedings against the three accused on the charge of committing murder of deceased -This provided to the appellant the first ground to challenge the judgments and orders passed against him by the courts- Appellant contended that both, the district judge and the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s first appeal and the second appeal respectively even while their criminal appeal against the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence was pending before the High Court-Plea of appellant that suit, when it was filed was quite premature and the defect was such that it could not be cured by any developments after the filing of the suit- Appellant further contended that occurrence took place on 7.8.1994 and the suit was filed on 20.12.1994 when even the charge sheet might not have been filed- The date on which the suit was filed, culpability of the defendants was yet to be judged in a criminal trial and, therefore, suit, according to appellant , was premature- Relying upon decision in case of Vithalbhai (P) Ltd.v. Union Bank of India held that a suit of a civil nature disclosing a cause of action even if filed before the date on which the plaintiff became actually entitled to sue and claim the relief founded on such cause of action is not to be necessarily dismissed for such reason- The question of suit being premature does not go to the root of jurisdiction of the court- The court entertaining such a suit and passing decree therein is not acting without jurisdiction but it is in the judicial discretion of the court to grant decree or not- Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6 to 9)

       Facts of the Case :

        Suit for damages was filed by widow and children of deceased herein claiming a sum of rupees two lakhs as damages from accused persons who, allegedly had killed deceased in an occurrence that took place at village.Civil proceedings for damages instituted by the widow and the children of the deceased moved much faster than the criminal proceedings against the three accused on the charge of committing murder of deceased .This provided to the appellant the first ground to challenge the judgments and orders passed against him by the courts. Plea of appellant that suit, when it was filed was quite premature and the defect was such that it could not be cured by any developments after the filing of the suit.

       Findings of the Court :

        Relying upon decision in case of Vithalbhai (P) Ltd.v. Union Bank of India held that a suit of a civil nature disclosing a cause of action even if filed before the date on which the plaintiff became actually entitled to sue and claim the relief founded on such cause of action is not to be necessarily dismissed for such reason. The question of suit being premature does not go to the root of jurisdiction of the court. The court entertaining such a suit and passing decree therein is not acting without jurisdiction but it is in the judicial discretion of the court to grant decree or not. The court would examine whether any irreparable prejudice was caused to defendant on account of the suit having been filed a little before date on which the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief became due and whether by granting the relief in such suit a manifest injustice would be caused to the defendant. Taking into consideration the explanation offered by the plaintiff for filing the suit before the date of maturity of cause of action, the court may deny the plaintiff his costs or may make such other order adjusting equities and satisfying the ends of justice as it may deem fit in its discretion. Appeal was Dismissed.

       Result : Appeal Dismissed.