Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
V-E Commercial Vehicles Ltd., represented through Dharmender Gaunigel - Appellant
Versus
M/s Chanani Transports, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand - Respondent
F.A. No. 13 of 2016
Decided On : 02-04-2024
[LIMITATION] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE] - [Order VII Rule 11, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, Article 113] - The court discussed the application of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which allows for the rejection of a plaint if it is barred by law, including limitation. It interpreted Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which provides for the exclusion of time spent in a bona fide proceeding in a court without jurisdiction, and Article 113, which outlines a three-year limitation period from when the right to sue accrues. The court concluded that the appellant's suit was not time-barred, as the cause of action continued until the demand notice was sent, and the time spent in the previous suit was to be excluded from the limitation period, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, V-E Commercial Vehicle Limited, filed a title suit seeking a mandatory injunction against the respondent, Chanani Transports, for failing to submit C-Forms related to the sale of five commercial vehicles worth Rs. 3,16,20,000. The suit was dismissed by the lower court on the grounds of being barred by limitation, as the cause of action was deemed to have arisen on 31.12.2010, and the suit was filed 214 days late.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the limitation period. It held that the cause of action did not solely arise on the date the C-Forms were due, but continued until the appellant sent a demand notice for payment. The court also noted that the time spent in the previous suit should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the time spent in the previous suit should be excluded from the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right to sue accrues not just at the point of a contractual obligation but can extend based on ongoing obligations and communications. It emphasized that the limitation period should be computed considering the entire context of the case, including prior proceedings and the nature of the breach.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's judgment, allowing the appeal and directing the lower court to admit the suit and proceed in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 11.09.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Ist, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) whereby and whereunder Title Suit No. 08 of 2015 instituted by the appellant has been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) on the ground of barred by limitation.
2. The factual background of this case in nutshell is that the title suit was instituted by the appellant before the court below asking relief for mandatory injunction for direction to the defendant to submit C-Forms in respect of sale of 5 trippers from the appellant in the month of November, 2010 worth Rs. 3,16,20,000/-(Three Crores Sixteen Lacs and Twenty Thousand Only). A petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay of 214 days in filing the said title suit.
The specific case of the appellant/plaintiff before the court below is as follows:-
(b) The defendant M/s Chanani Transports is a partnership firm engaged in the business of transportation, finance, travel, etc and managing its business from Ramgarh, District, (Erstwhile District, Hazaribagh) Jharkhand.
(c) The respondent/defendant contacted the appellant plaintiff to purchase the commercial vehicle from the plaintiff in pursuance of which appellant sent quotation to the respondent vide quotation no. QCL 10 SC 0020 dated 06.08.2010.
(d) After receiving the quotation from the appellant and being satisfied with the same, the respondent placed order for 10 (Ten) commercial vehicles (10 Volvo) FM 400 8x4 tipper with 18.7 Cu.M. Rock Body with Hub Reduction fitted 12x24 Crossply Tyres (MRF) vide letter dated 26.10.2010.
(e) The respondent requested to appellant to provide invoice of above vehicle at a concessional CST Rate of 2% for which the respondent had assured the appellant that they were registered with the Sales Tax Authorities in the State of Jharkhand and in connection of which respondent provided the appellant their TIN No. 20950406485. The said TIN No. was also mentioned in the invoices raised by the appellant.
(f) The appellant quoted the price of the vehicle as Rs. 63,24,000/-(Rupees Sixty Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand) , each which was inclusively of CST @ 2% against Form C.
(g) As per agreement between the parties that in case, the respondent fails to submit the Form-C, the defendant shall pay the appellant Value Added Tax (VAT) @13 % on the duty price.
(h) The respondent had further agreed in unequivocal terms that respondent will forward the said Form-C to the appellant prior to the invoicing/delivery of the vehicles.
(i) The respondent vide letter dated 26.10.2010 undertook to deliver the Form-C to the appellant by 31.12.2010 and if not delivered within stipulated time period, they shall pay the entire non-concessional CST of 13.5%. This letter was in accordance with terms and condition of the purchase order.
(j) The appellant has invoiced 5 tippers to the respondent on 03.11.2010 based on Form-C billing. The details of which are as follows:-
| Vehicle No. | Invoice No. | Date of Invoice | Price |
| FM 400 8x4 Tipper | 2201503 | 3.11.2010 | Rs. 63,24,000/- |
| FM 400 8x4 Tipper | 2201504 | 3.11.2010 | Rs. 63,24,000/- |
| FM 400 8x4 Tipper | 2201505 | 3.11.2010 | Rs. 63,24,000/- |
| FM 400 8x4 Tipper | 2201506 | 3.11.2010 | Rs. 63,24,000/- |
| FM 400 8x4 Tipper | 2201507 | 2201507 | Rs.63,24,000/- |
(k) The respondent did not submit Form-C to the appellant as per contract for sale made between the parties and the appellant was expecting that the Form-C would be submitted within the same financia
AI
The court clarified that the limitation period for a suit can be extended based on ongoing obligations and that time spent in a prior suit in a court without jurisdiction can be excluded from the lim....
Rejection of plaint – Whether suit is barred by any law must be determined from statements in plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including written statem....
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.
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.
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
