SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Cal) 159

High Court Of Calcutta
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MALAY KUMAR BASU
STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
POPAT AND KOTECH PROPERTY - Respondent
A. P. O. T.  157  Of  2000
Decided On : 03/31/2000

Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC relates to the applicability of the Law of Limitation when it talks about the suit being barred under any Law.

Headnote:

ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC - LIMITATION - REJECTION OF PLAINT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 54:

Fact of the Case:

Respondent and appellant entered into an agreement on 19th January, 1983 whereby the respondent agreed to build and develop the property owned by the appellant. A detailed agreement was executed on 19th January 1983 between the parties which, inter alia, provided for regulating the relationship between the Owner and the Builder/promoter. The respondent filed a suit in the year 1999 claiming various reliefs, including a declaration that it was entitled to let out the ground floor, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th floor and the roof of the said premises and realize all rents, issues and profits therefrom without any interference by the appellant, specific performance of the Development Agreement dated 19th January, 1983, and damages. The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned trial Judge refused the said prayer of the appellant and dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 by holding that the expression 'barred by any law' as occurring therein did not include the operation of the Limitation Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC relates to the applicability of the Law of Limitation when it talks about the suit being barred under any Law. The court further held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of three years prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and allowed the appeal. The plaint was rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11, Clause (d) of the CPC because the suit was held to be barred by limitation.

Issues: Whether Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC relates to the applicability of the Law of Limitation when it talks about the suit being barred under any Law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that the language employed in Clause (d) (supra) does not indicate the intention of the legislature to the contrary. When Clause (d) talks about the suit being barred under any Law, the expression 'law' undoubtedly will include the law of Limitation also. If therefore a defendant brings to the notice of the Court that a particular suit, on a mere perusal of the plaint is barred by Law of Limitation because it has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefore in Limitation Act, he is entitled to maintain an application in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC and if that happens it is the duty of the Court to take note of that application and on considering the aspect as to whether the suit is filed within the limitation period or not decide the application, based on the limitation aspect as has been projected in the application and return a finding, allowing or not allowing the application, as the case may be.

Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and allowed the appeal. The plaint was rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11, Clause (d) of the CPC because the suit was held to be barred by limitation.

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MALAY KUMAR BASU

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against a judgment dated 27th January 2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 376 of 1999.

( 2 ) BY the aforesaid judgment the learned single Judge has refused the prayer of the appellant/defendant for rejection of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the appellant that the plaint be rejected because the suit is barred by limitation has been negatived by the learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal by holding that the limitation as an issue is not relevant for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The following observation forming the basis of refusal to reject the plaint on the aforesaid ground is apposite; we quote as under :-"with regard to the point raised by Mr. Chatterjee that the suit is barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my view, the phrase "suit is barred" means barred by the Statutes. The prescribed period stipulated in the Limitation Act, in my view, is not bar to filing suit. Remedy may be barred. Therefore, whether the relief or remedy claimed or claimed in the suit is barred or not can be decided at the time of the trial of the suit as a preliminary issue. "

( 3 ) THE brief facts regarding the filing of the appeal may be stated as herein below.

( 4 ) THE respondent Popal and Kotech Property, a Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the appellant State Bank of India Staff Association entered into an agreement on 19th January, 1983 whereby the respondent agreed to build and develop the property owned by the appellant. A detailed agreement was, accordingly, executed on 19th January 1983 between the parties which, inter alia, provided for regulating the relationship between the Owner and the Builder/promoter. Para 13 of the Agreement, which is at the core of the subject matter of the present appeal, stipulated that after the construction of the entire building is completed and two Chartered Engineers issue the Final Completion Certificate, the respondent shall by a notice to the appellant call upon the appellant to execute and register a lease in favour of the respondent or its nominee whereby a lease of the second floor, third floor, fourth floor, fifth floor and the roof (collectively described as the demised premises) was to be granted. This clause contained detailed stipulations regarding the grant of the said lease. We reproduce Clause 13 of the aforesaid Agreement which reads thus:-"clause 13 : That after completion of the construction of the entire building in accordance with the final sanctioned/renewed plan in respect thereof and after obtaining the final completion certificates from the said two Chartered Engineers relating to the construction of the building the Builders shall by a notice to the Association call upon the Association (as Lesser) to execute and register a Deed of Lease in favour of the Builders or their nominee or nominees (as Lessee) granting a lease of the said Second floor, third floor, Fourth floor, fifth floor and the roof thereon (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the demised premises' of the building at the costs of and incidental charges to the execution and registration of the said Deed of Lease to be provided by the Lessee for a term of 51 years from the date of execution of such Deed of Lease taking into account the position and circumstances existing concerning the demises premises, at the time of execution of the said deed of Lease and upon into inter alia the terms, conditions and covenants hereinafter mentioned in Clause 16 hereof, such Lease and the terms referred to in clause (if hereof forming inter alia the basic consideration of the arrangement between the Association and Builders touching and concerning the construction of the said building on the said land of the Association












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top