Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Bistimorial Nongsiej - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 11 of 2019
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Limitation Act - Civil Revision No. 1 of 2017 - Section 80, Section 151, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Article 58, Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a plot of land and filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The petitioner appealed to the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) and subsequently approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as the cause of action arose in 2010 and the suit was filed in 2016, exceeding the three-year limitation period. The Court also ruled that the petitioner's application under Article 227 was maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Limitation Act to the petitioner's suit, and the maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the suit was indeed barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as the three-year period had lapsed. Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner's application under Article 227 was maintainable, as it was the only available remedy after exhausting the revisional option.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, and the Court upheld the decision of the trial court and the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) that the suit was barred by limitation.
JUDGMENT
1. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 15.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin in Civil Revision No. 1 of 2017, the petitioner has now approached this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The background of the case as could be seen from the petition is that the petitioner is said to be the owner and in possession of a plot of land measuring 18,427 sq. meters more or less, situated at Nongstoin- Mawkawah Mawthawpdah Road which land was inherited from her mother (L) Belsibon Nongsiej.
3. A portion of this land measuring about 120 x 20 meters was acquired by the respondents from the father of the petitioner (L) Rupring Marwein in the year 1978.
4. The respondent No. 3 vide letter and Memo No.ACQ.A.23/76/200, dated 04.03.2010 issued upon the petitioner's mother has conveyed the intention of the respondents to widen the Nongstoin-Mawthawpdah Road and for a spot enquiry to be conducted on 10.03.2010, which according to the petitioner was done in the presence of the petitioner's mother but no proper measurement of the portion of the petitioner's land was made.
5. The petitioner was confronted with the entry of some persons into her land in the year 2016 claiming to be contractors who were allotted to construct a parking bay at Nongbah junction and that the said construction would be made on the land of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner maintaining that the land was never acquired has accordingly filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and consequential relief before the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (J), Nongstoin which was registered as Title Suit No. 1 of 2016. Along with the plaint, an application for waiver of requirement for issue of notice under Section 80 of the CPC and another application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed before the said Court and the Trial Court upon hearing the petitioner/plaintiff had ordered that status quo be maintained.
7. The respondents then filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint which was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent approached this Court by filing a Revision Petition No. 30 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 28.09.2016 had disposed of the said petition with a direction to the trial court to decide the following issues.
i. Whether Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory and exception therein?
ii. Whether the exception under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in this case? If it applies, what is the urgency that needs to be determined by the Court?
iii. Whether the Law of Limitation is applicable in this instant case?
8. The Trial Court on receipt of the said order of this Court heard the parties on the issues and has accordingly decided Issue No. (i) and Issue No. (ii) in favour of the petitioner and on Issue No. (iii) the Court has decided against the petitioner and has held that the suit was barred by limitation and accordingly vide order dated 07.07.2017 had dismissed the suit.
9. The petitioner went up before the Court of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Nongstoin against the order dated 07.07.2017 in Civil Revision No. 7 of 2019 and the revisional court upon hearing the parties has dismissed the petition vide Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2019 holding that the Limitation Act is applicable in the case and that Article 58 and not Article 65 of the Limitation Act holds the ground in their case. Hence this petition.
10. Mr. A. S. Siddique, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the case of the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground of limitation since it is apparent that Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable to her case and not Article 58 of the said A
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, specifically Article 58, to determine the limitation period for filing a suit for declaration of right, titl....
A Title Suit filed without jurisdiction cannot lead to valid execution; the doctrine of lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers to existing litigation outcomes.
(1) Striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Once specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is available, High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off ....
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is to ensure subordinate courts act within their authority; amendments to pleadings must be sought in good faith and with due diligence.
Civil Law – Decree - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of suit - It m....
[The court established that amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the fundamental nature of the suit an....
All amendments necessary for determining the real issue in controversy between the parties must be allowed, and the fact that the amendment may be belated cannot be a ground to disallow the amendment....
The unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed by the parents is illegal and without jurisdiction. The cancellation of settlement deed by the parents is non-est in law. The suit filed in the year....
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
