Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Gobind Ram Keswani – Appellant
Versus
Ram Sharan Rai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding limitation (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on agreement and limitation (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. issues framed regarding limitation and cause of action (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. trial court to adjudicate on merits (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. conclusion and direction for trial court (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 27th February, 2018 by which an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which had been filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 has been dismissed by the District Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in Suit No. 959 of 2017 titled Ram Sharan Rai v. Gobind Ram Keshwani & Ors..
3. The brief facts are that a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,10,000/- was filed by the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff against the Petitioner as also the Respondent No.2 and other defendants. The Petitioner herein was Defendant No.1 in the suit and he filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC raising various pleas.
4. For the purposes of this petition, primarily the issue of limitation ha
Limitation for a loan recovery suit based on demand is applicable, requiring evidence to substantiate the agreement's terms, not dismissible on limitation grounds alone.
The court established that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial to resolve, rather than dismissal at the application stage.
The decision to reject a plaint based on limitation should be made solely based on the averments in the plaint and not on the defense presented by the defendant. The court also highlighted the duty o....
The need for specific and unambiguous averments in the plaint to maintain a suit, and the mixed question of fact and law in determining the law of limitation.
The main legal point established is that for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the aspect of limitation has to be reflected from the plaint, and the court will consider the bare re....
The legal principle established is that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC requires a clear indication from the plaint itself that the suit is barred by limitation, and the trial c....
The limitation for cancellation suits begins from the time the plaintiff becomes aware of the grounds for cancellation, not from the date of the instrument's execution.
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
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
