2025 Supreme(SC) 623

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another – Appellants
Versus
Rajmani And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 36 of 2021)
Decided On : 09-04-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Second appeal – Section 100 CPC confers jurisdiction on High Court to entertain a second appeal, only when it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law.
(2) Framing of issue – Issues can be framed on a question of law or fact or a mixed question of law and fact – There is no necessity to frame an issue, when parties are not at dispute on a particular fact or law.
(3) Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law – However, there is no hard and fast rule that every question of limitation is to be treated as a mixed question of fact and law.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Section 100 CPC confers jurisdiction on High Court to entertain a second appeal, only when it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law – Upon admitting such appeal, High Court is empowered to frame substantial questions and adjudicate them directly, without necessity of remanding the matter to trial court – This approach ensures judicial efficiency and prevents unnecessary prolongation of litigation – In present case, High Court allowed second appeal by setting aside judgments passed by Courts below and remitted the matter to trial Court for fresh trial with direction to frame additional issue regarding limitation – Once High Court is satisfied that appeal involves a substantial question of law, such question shall have to be framed and finally decided on merits in accordance with procedure laid down under Section 100 CPC – High Court has failed to decide substantial framed at the time of admission and went to decide, only additional substantial question of law, framed at the time of hearing – Decision of High Court remanding the matter to Trial Court for fresh trial on limitation aspect, without deciding the same on merits, by holding that a separate issue ought to have been framed is unsustainable and will certainly prolong litigation without any useful purpose. (Paras 12, 12.1 and 18)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIV Rules 1 and 2 – Framing of issue – Object of framing an issue is to determine material point of disputes between parties, for the purpose of adjudication – Issues can be framed on a question of law or fact or a mixed question of law and fact – Decision on issue settles lis in favour of either of parties – A distinct issue is to be formed when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by another – There is no necessity to frame an issue, when parties are not at dispute on a particular fact or law – At times, despite pleadings, when a specific issue is not framed, but when both parties to lis have let in evidence and rendered their arguments on a point, decision on which is intrinsically connected to main issue, then Court is bound to render a finding on point of dispute before deciding connected issue, one way or another – In that case, it becomes duty of Court to analyse evidence before it and render decision on all disputed questions of fact or law, directly or indirectly in issue, so as to put an end to lis. (Para 19)

(C) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rules 4 and 10 – Limitation – Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law – However, there is no hard and fast rule that every question of limitation is to be treated as a mixed question of fact and law – In cases, where action is initiated after several years after right to sue accrued, without any pleadings to explain reasons for delay or as to when fraud was discovered, question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law – Limitation Act,1963 restricts right of a litigant by prescribing a time limit within which action must be initiated – Object of the Act is not to destroy a vested right available in law but to prevent indefinite litigation – Even in absence of specific pleadings regarding limitation in plaint or a plea of defence, there is bounden duty on every Civil Court to ascertain as to whether lis has been initiated within time prescribed under law, even if parties to lis had not raised any objections – This right flows from mandate of Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Courts are vested with powers to go into question of law, touching upon either limitation or jurisdiction, even if no plea is raised and not in cases, where facts have to be pleaded and evidence has to be let in – Civil Procedure Code and law of limitation, being procedural laws, meant to assist Courts in process of rendering justice, cannot curtail power of Courts to render justice – Procedural laws after all are handmaid of justice – What is to be seen is whether any irregularity arising from a failure to follow procedure has caused serious prejudice to parties. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Only question that arises for our consideration is whether High Court was justified in remanding the matter to trial Court for a fresh trial on issue of limitation, despite existence of concurrent findings, when Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowered High Court to decide the matter.

Findings of Court:

High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial solely with respect to the issue of limitation and that Courts below have rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief.

Result : Appeal allowed.