BALASARIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs HANUMAN SEVA TRUST

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2005 Supreme(SC) 1986

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N. VARIAVA, AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
BALASARIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. - Appellant
VERSUS
HANUMAN SEVA TRUST & ORS. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4539 OF 2003
Decided On : 19-10-2005

Important Points

The court declined to rule on whether "barred by law" under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure includes the law of limitation, as the question was academic to the specific facts of the case.

Subject

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.7 R.11(d)

Headnote

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Whether the words "barred by law" include the law of limitation - Question referred to larger Bench - Both parties agreed that an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) can be based on the law of limitation - Decision in the case depends on the specific facts - Question held to be academic in the present context - No reason to decide the question in this case.

Facts of the case:
An appeal was referred to a larger Bench of the court to consider whether a plea of limitation could form the basis of an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the legal question referred was academic so far as the specific case was concerned, as both parties acknowledged that such applications can be based on limitation and the final decision would depend on the facts of the case.

Issues: Whether the expression "barred by law" under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure includes the law of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a referred legal question is academic to the specific facts of the case and does not impact the final decision, the court may decline to answer the question and remit the matter for disposal on merits.

Result: Matter sent back to a 2-Judge Bench for disposal on merits.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Adv. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad,Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S. S. Santan, Adv. Mr. Goodwill Indeevar,Adv. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Adv.

ORDER :

This Appeal is before us pursuant to a reference made by an Order dated 30th August, 2005. Reference was made for consideration of question whether an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure can be based on a plea of limitation. The question raised for consideration by this larger Bench is whether the words "barred by law" under Order VII Rule 11(d) would also include the law of limitation.

We have heard the parties. Both sides very fairly state that it is not the case of either side that as an absolute proposition an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) can never be based on the law of limitation.

Both sides state that the impugned Judgment is based on the facts of this particular case and the question whether or not an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) could be based on law of limitation was not raised and has not been dealt with. Both sides further state that the decision in this case will depend upon the facts of this case.

In our view, the question referred to this larger Bench is academic so far as this case is concerned. We, thus, see no reason to decide this question in this case. We, therefore, send the matter back to a 2-Judge Bench for disposal on merits based on the facts of this case.