ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Swami Sadguru Sharnanand
Ji Maharaj —Revisionist
versus
Hari Kumar & Ors. —Opp. Parties
Civil Revision No.553 of 2012
Decided on 28.5.2013
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 3—Rejection of plaint—Bar of limitation—Plaint of a suit is liable to be rejected where suit appears to be barred by any law—Plaint cannot escape rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC but for exemption from limitation if established from plaint in accordance with Order VII, Rule 6 CPC—Observation of Supreme Court permitting filing of afresh suit does not extend period of limitation or give plaintiff/respondents either a fresh cause of action or any latitude to calculate limitation of suit from date of decision of Supreme Court as against statutory provision providing for reckoning limitation from date on which right to sue first accrued—It does not even mandates that court should ignore limitation or any bar in institution of suit— Court is obliged to dismiss a suit on ground of limitation even if no plea has been raised that it is barred by limitation—Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under law by refusing to reject plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 3 of Limitation Act—Impugned order set aside and plaint rejected. (Paras 35, 37, 42, 50, 56 and 57)
Result: Civil Revision Application allowed.
Pankaj Mithal, J.— The present revision is an outcome of the third suit in connection with the Mahantship of the Math Garhwa Ghat of “Sant Mat” Sampradaya, Varanasi.
2. The litigation in connection with the properties and Mahantship of the Math started in the year 1951 and is still continuing despite an elaborate and comprehensive decision of the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation arising with the institution of Original Suit No.469 of 1951.
3. The plaintiff/respondents in continuation of the earlier litigation instituted Original Suit No.1098 of 2010 Hari Kumar and others v. Devnath Yadav alias Mahant Swami Sharnanand Ji Maharaj primarily for a decree of declaration that the aforesaid Devnath Yadav and all persons claiming through him are not entitle to hold the office of Mahant of the aforesaid Math as he was not a Sanyasi/Chela who was ever installed as Mahant.
4. The defendant/revisionist in the said suit filed application (paper No.64 Ga) under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on two grounds: (1) that there is no cause of action to the plaintiff/respondents for the suit; and (2) that the suit is barred by limitation.
5. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the order impugned dated 17.9.2012.
6. Thus, in the present revision impugning the above order, the only question which deserves consideration is whether the court below is justified in rejecting the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC so as to permit the suit to proceed on merit or whether the plaint of the aforesaid suit is liable to be rejected under the aforesaid provision.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy it is important to narrate in brief the history relating to the past litigation of the aforesaid Math which is more elaborately contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir., AIR 1980 SC 707.
8. The Garhwa Ghat Math was founded in the year 1925 by one Swami Sarupanand Paramhans, a disciple of Swami Advaitanand. He preached the tenets and precepts of “Sant Mat” Sampradaya. He inducted Baikunth Singh, father of Krishna Singh as his Chela and named him Swami Atmavivekanand. Swami Sarupanand took Samadi in 1936 at Meerut and Baikunth Singh alias Swami Atmavivekanand succeeded him as Mahant. He died on. 23rd August, 1948 and was succeeded by the disciple Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand.
9. Swami Sarupanand was endowed land and building by his followers and in the due course several properties were purchased which all were recognised as the properties of the Math. One of the properties, house No.C77-33 situate in Mohalla Jagatganj, Varanasi was in possession of Avadesh Narain and others. Therefore, Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand the then Mahant of the Math brought Original Suit No.469 of 1951 for their ejectment. The said suit was later on converted into a title suit and Krishna Singh, was impleaded as one of the defendants as the occupants claimed that they are in permissive possession of it through Krishna Singh, the then Mahant of the Math. Thus, the Krishna Singh was set up as the Mahant of the Math as against Swami Harsewanand. The suit was decreed and the decree was finally upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 21.12.1979 reported as above.
10. In the aforesaid suit two of the relevant points which arose were whether the Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand was the Chela of Baikunth Singh alias Swami Atmavivekanand and was entitle to succeed to the properties left behind by him in preference to his son Krishna Singh and whether the aforesaid house was a Math property. The Apex Court affirmed the findings of the court below that the two houses at Varanasi including the suit house were purchased by Baikunth Singh alias Swami Atmavivekanand out of the offerings made by his disciples and therefore were Math properties. It was further held that Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand was validly initiated as Chela of Baikunth Singh alias Swami A
Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors.
Damodaran Pillai and Ors. v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
Padmasundara Rao and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Maqbool Ahmad and Ors. v. Omkar Narain Pratap Singh and Ors.
Mahindra Land Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee
N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Os. v. Mariyamma (dead) by Proposed LRs and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.