Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Satendra Kumar Pathak v. Govid Prasad Pathak and others
Miscellaneous Petition No. 4336 of 2023 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 5.7.2023 passed by the trial Court in RCS-A No. 188/2022; Decided on 9.8.2023.
flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 14 fu- 5 && vfrfjä fook|d fojfpr fd, tkus d¢ fy, vkosnu && U;k;ky; dk drZO; && fyf[kr dFku esa fofufnZ"V vkifÙk mBkà xà fd okn ifjlhek }kjk oftZr gS && bl fcanq ij fook|d fojfpr fd, fcuk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;k && fopkj.k U;k;ky; ifjlhek d¢ ç'u ij fook|d fojfpr djus d¢ fy, ckè; && vkosnu [kkfjt dj çR;{k =qfV dh && ifjlhek d¢ ç'u ij fook|d fojfpr djus d¢ fy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; funsf'krA ¼iSjk 4 ,oa 5
Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 14 R. 5 -- application for framing additional issue -- duty of Court -- specific objection raised in written statement that suit is barred by limitation -- application rejected without framing issue on this point -- trial Court bound to frame issue on question of limitation -- committed patent illegality in rejecting application -- trial Court directed to frame issue on limitation. [Para 4 & 5
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5.7.2023 (Annexure P/7) passed by the trial Court in a pending civil suit i.e. RCS-A-188/2022 whereby an application filed by him under Order 14 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing additional issue has been rejected.
2. The suit was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction in which written-statement was filed on behalf of defendants taking a stand therein that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by time but despite that issue with regard to the limitation has not been framed. An application was, therefore, moved by the petitioner/defendant asking the trial Court to frame additional issue as to whether suit is barred by time or not but the trial Court has refused to entertain the application saying that whatever issues are framed, those are sufficient to decide the issue pending before the Court.
3. I have perused the plaint, written-statement and also the issues framed by the trial Court.
4. In the opinion of this Court when there is specific stand taken by the defendant in the written-statement that the suit is barred by time, the trial Court is bound to frame issue about limitation but that has not been framed and as such, the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and committed patent illegality in rejecting the application submitted by the defendant under Order 14 rule 5 of CPC. From the record, it appears that the suit was fixed for recording the evidence of plaintiff and the trial Court can allow the application.
5. Accordinly, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court dated 5.7.2023 (Annexure P/7) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to frame the issue with regard to limitation as to whether the suit is barred by time or not.
6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
SupremeToday
The principle of res judicata and the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were central to the court's decision.
The court ruled that a suit filed after a lengthy delay is barred by limitation, establishing that the commencement of limitation can start from an earlier event, not just the filing date.
A disputed question cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
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
