Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, R.F. Nariman, JJ.
L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. – Appellants
VERSUS
H.B. SHIVAKUMAR – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6595 OF 2015 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15513 of 2015)
Decided On : 26-08-2015
(2011) 9 SCC 126 – Relied upon
Code of Civil procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment – Doctrine of relation back – Court allowing amendment expressly doing so subject to plea of limitation by defendant – Thus there were no special or extraordinary circumstances to warrant application of doctrine of relation back – Legal right already accrued in favour of the defendant cannot be taken away. (Para 29)
(2011) 9 SCC 126; 1957 SCR 595; 47 IA 255 (1920); 1957 SCR 438; 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 17; (2001) 6 SCC 163; (2001) 8 SCC 561; (2002) 7 SCC 559; (2010) 14 SCC 596; (2013) 9 SCC 576 – Relied upon
ILR 33 Bom 644 (1900) – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
On 9th March, 1990, one L.C. Hanumanthappa filed a suit against one H.B. Shivakumar for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his servants and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In this suit, namely, O.S. No. 1386 of 1990, the plaintiff averred that he is the absolute owner, and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Within a few days from the filing of this suit, the defendant in the first suit filed a suit being suit number O.S. 1650 of 1990 against one L.C. Ramaiah and the said Shri Hanumanthappa asking for a permanent injunction against the said defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
In the written statement to O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 dated 16th May, 1990, the defendant not only referred to his own suit which had by then already been filed, but specifically stated that the suit for injunction is not maintainable in that, he has failed to establish title with possession over site No. old 13, and that is not establishing any connection between old site No.13, and new No. 12/2, alleged to be assigned by Bangalore City Corporation or about 6-6-1989.
Thus on 16th May, 1990 itself the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 was put on notice that his suit for injunction was not maintainable as he had failed to establish title over the suit schedule property.
Both suits were tried together, and the Court of Additional City Civil Judge decreed O.S. No. 1650 of 1990 and dismissed O.S. No. 1386 of 1990. In the first appeals filed against the said judgment, the High Court allowed R.F.A. No. 415 of 1999, and dismissed R.F.A. No. 456 of 1999, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
On 1st April, 2002, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 then sought to amend the plaint in terms of the said judgment by adding para 5A to the plaint.
A decree for declaration of title to the suit schedule property was then added as a prayer to the amended plaint. On 1st August, 2002, the defendant filed an additional written statement in which the defendant stated that the said plea based on a new cause of action, namely, declaration of title, was time-barred.
After remand, the City Civil Court decreed the suit O.S. No. 1386 of 1990. It turned down the plea of limitation.
In R.F.A. No. 796 of 2009 the High Court reversed the said judgment on limitation. The High Court also turned down the plea with reference to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stating that on the facts of the present case limitation could not be extended because the wrong in the present case was not a continuing wrong.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is justified.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act begins from the date when the right to sue first arose, which is when the cause of action becomes apparent or when the facts enabling the suit are first known to the plaintiff (!) .
A suit based on a cause of action that is barred by limitation at the time of filing cannot be retroactively validated by amendments if the amendments introduce a new cause of action or fundamentally alter the basis of the suit, unless specific circumstances justify relation back (!) (!) .
Amendments that seek to add new allegations or a new cause of action after the limitation period has expired are generally time-barred, especially if they change the nature or scope of the original suit. The doctrine of relation back does not automatically apply in such cases unless exceptional circumstances are present (!) (!) (!) .
The doctrine of relation back in the context of amendments is subject to judicial discretion and is not universally applicable. It may be denied if the amendment would cause injustice or prejudice to the other party, or if it introduces a new cause of action that is time-barred (!) (!) .
The original pleadings and written statements serve as a notice to the other party regarding the existence or denial of a claim or right. A clear denial of a right or title in the initial pleadings can start the limitation clock from that date, making subsequent amendments that rely on the same cause of action potentially time-barred if filed after the limitation period (!) (!) .
When an amendment is permitted, it may be expressly or implicitly subject to the plea of limitation, and the court may decide whether the amended claim relates back to the date of the original suit or is deemed to have been introduced later (!) (!) .
The timing of amendments, especially those seeking to alter the nature of the claim or introduce a new cause of action, is crucial in determining whether they are within the limitation period. Delay in seeking amendments can lead to their being considered time-barred unless justified by special circumstances (!) (!) .
In cases where amendments are made long after the initial filing, courts generally exercise caution and consider whether allowing such amendments would cause injustice, prejudice, or violate the limitations prescribed by law (!) (!) .
If you need further clarification or specific legal advice based on this summary, please let me know.
JUDGMENT
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present case arises out of cross suits filed by the parties. On 9th March, 1990, one L.C. Hanumanthappa filed a suit against one H.B. Shivakumar for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his servants and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In this suit, namely, O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the plaintiff averred that he is the absolute owner, and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He also averred in the said suit that the schedule property is clearly distinguishable and could be identified without difficulty. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose when the defendant tried to trespass on the schedule property two days before the suit was filed.
3. Within a few days from the filing of this suit, the defendant in the first suit filed a suit being suit number O.S. 1650 of 1990 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore against one L.C. Ramaiah and the said Shri Hanumanthappa stating that the defendants had attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property about 15 days prior to the suit being filed, and asked for a permanent injunction against the said defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
4. In the written statement to O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 dated 16th May, 1990, the defendant not only referred to his own suit which had by then already been filed, but specifically stated as follows:-
“4. The boundaries furnished by the plaintiff to old survey site No.13, in the plaint schedule is totally false and that has nothing to do with the boundaries mentioned in his document.
5. The Plaintiff has failed to established any relationship between old site No.13 and Corporation No.12/2, as claimed by him in the plaint.
6. The allegations that at the time of the purchase of the schedule property by the plaintiff, western boundary was a building site bearing No.14 and however subsequently the said portion left for building site has been converted as road and is being used as such since several years are false and further it is false to state that the east of the schedule property bearing building site No. 12 is situate and the same was belonging to one H. Venkataramanappa and however, the said site has been sold by him and now the said property is owned by one Sri Ahmadullah khan and he has constructed a building thereon, as alleged in para 2 of the plaint.
7. The plaintiff has purposefully distorted the boundary of his old site No. 13 to bring substantially the boundaries of site No.15, old 3, C.T.S. No. 1157 (city Survey) which exclusively belongs to the defendant.
13. The suit for injunction is not maintainable in that, he has failed to establish title with possession over site No. old 13, and that is not establishing any connection between old site No.13, and new No. 12/2, alleged to be assigned by Bangalore City Corporation or about 6-6-1989.”
5. It can thus be seen that on 16th May, 1990 itself the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 was put on notice that his suit for injunction was not maintainable as he had failed to establish title over the suit schedule property.
6. Both suits were tried together, and by a judgment dated 10th March, 1999, the Court of Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore decreed O.S. No. 1650 of 1990 and dismissed O.S. No. 1386 of 1990. In the first appeals filed against the said judgment, the High Court of Karnataka by its judgment dated 28th March, 2002 allowed R.F.A. No. 415 of 1999, and dismissed R.F.A. No. 456 of 1999, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The High Court while remanding the matter observed as follows:-
“10. The trial Court had also appointed the Commissioner. The Commissioner after inspecting the properties has given
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
