ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard Counsel on both sides. Rule, returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the Counsel.

2. This appeal challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, "B" Court, at Mapusa, Goa whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The appellant-plaintiff had filed suit seeking declaration that the appointment of the defendant No.4 at the inception (since 9-9-2004) was bad in law, illegal and unauthorised as also its continuance; that the defendant No.4 be directed to hand over all the assets, accounts, money, etc., illegally usurped and taken over by them in the year 1974 unto Socorro Confratia and for injunction restraining them from functioning and usurping any domain, collecting rents or activities originally belonging to the Confraria and taking major policy decisions.

4. Before filing written statement, the defendants No. 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII, Rule II(d) of Civil Procedure Code praying for rejection of the plaint under the said provision. In the said application, it was essentially contended that in para 52 of the plaint it is shown that the cause of action had arisen on 9-9-1974 and further contended that the said cause of action could not be said to be continuing and recurring and that the period of limitation for filing the suit for declaration and injunction would be three years from the cause of action i.e. from 9-9-1974 and that the present suit filed in 2004 was barred by limitation. They also contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as under the Canon law such a suit is barred and that if any person is aggrieved, he has to approach Higher Ecclesiastical Authorities and, therefore, the suit was not entertainable by the Civil Court.

5. The appellant-plaintiff opposed the said application, essentially on the ground that para 52 of the plaint clearly mentioned that the cause of action had arisen on 9-9-1974, which was of continuous and recurring nature and the limitation as per the special law was 30 years and, therefore, the suit was within limitation. He further contended that the suit was of civil nature and, therefore, it was entertainable by the Civil Court under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

6. The learned Civil Judge, in short, held that the provision of the limitation Act was applicable and, therefore, the period of limitation was three years from the date of cause of action i.e. from 9-9-1974 and the suit having been filed in 2004 was totally barred by limitation. As regards the jurisdiction, the trial Court held that the Canon Law is not a special or local)aw and it is a divine law and therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. There was also an observation made by the learned trial Judge that the Canon Law did not have force of statute.

On these grounds, the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of Civil Procedure Code.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was of civil nature and, therefore, under the provision of section 9 of Civil Procedure Code the Civil Court had jurisdiction. He also submitted that the Canon Law prescribes limitation of 30 years for perfecting the title to the Confrarias and, therefore, the suit is filed within the period of prescription of 30 years and, as such, the suit was within limitation.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted,' particularly on the point of limitation, that the period of 30 years which is prescribed under the Canon Law, was for prescription and was not the limitation. He brought to my notice the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly section 29(2) of the Act to contend that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the facts of the present case. He also submitted that the period of 30 years was only prescription and was not the period of limitation prescribed for taking action as it is taken in the present case.

9. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document