Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Suresh Kumar Dagla - Appellant
Versus
Sarwan and another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6363 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 37163 of 2012).
Decided on : 26.8.2014.
Code of Civil Procedure - Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 12 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 467,468,471 and 120 B - Dismissal of suit - Registered sale deed - Cheating regarding purchase of suit land - Sale deed was obtained fraudulently - Suit is barred under the law - 1st respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of appellant and his father in respect of lands after receiving consideration Subsequently, 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a complaint before District Judge against appellant-defendant inter alia alleging that appellant has committed cheating regarding purchase of suit land owned by plaintiff - In said complaint, 1st respondent alleged that sale deed was obtained fraudulently - Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge dismissed complaint by recording a finding that a false complaint has been lodged by 1st respondent against appellant - Held, 1st respondent has not disputed fact that he had already instituted a case alleging therein that appellant inter alia cheated him while purchasing said land which was rejected on 30th September, 1993. From aforesaid fact, it is clear that 1st respondent had knowledge about sale deed and as back as in month of September, 1993 - From aforesaid fact, it is clear that suit was barred by limitation and thereby 1st respondent cannot derive any benefit in terms of Section 257 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Set aside order passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Civil Revision order, passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class-1, in Civil Suit allow application filed by appellant under Order 7 Rule11 read with Section 151 of CPC and dismiss suit as barred by limitation - Appeal is allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over the validity of a sale deed obtained by the appellant, which the first respondent claims was procured through fraud and cheating (!) (!) .
The sale deed was executed in favor of the appellant and his father, and the first respondent had received consideration for the land involved (!) .
The first respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating and fraud related to the sale deed, which was dismissed by the Special Judge as a false complaint (!) (!) .
Subsequently, the first respondent filed a civil suit seeking to declare the sale deed null and void, but the appellant contended that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed after a significant delay from the date of the sale deed (!) (!) .
The appellant filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and other provisions, asserting that the suit was barred by limitation and should be dismissed (!) (!) .
The trial court dismissed the application, and the High Court upheld this decision, leading the appellant to appeal further (!) (!) .
The appellate court found that the first respondent had knowledge of the sale deed as early as September 1993, which was well before the filing of the suit in August 2006 (!) (!) .
It was held that the suit was time-barred because it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period, and the benefit under the relevant land revenue code could not be claimed by the first respondent (!) (!) .
Consequently, the appellate court set aside the orders of the lower courts, allowed the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 11, and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation (!) (!) .
The decision emphasizes the importance of timely filing suits and the effect of knowledge of facts on the accrual of the limitation period.
JUDGMENT
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant No. 1 against the order dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Civil Revision No. 120 of 2012. By the impugned order, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's order dated 23rd June, 2012 refusing to allow the application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, "the CPC") for dismissal of suit on the ground that the suit is barred under the law and thereby dismissed the civil revision application.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows :
The 1st respondent executed a registered sale deed dated 30th November, 1992 in favour of the appellant and his father in respect of land admeasuring 0.64 acres in Khasra No. 445; land admeasuring 1.71 acres in Khasra No. 625; land admeasuring 0.42 acres in Khasra No. 575; land admeasuring 0.22 acres in Khasra No. 576 of agricultural land situated in Village Sakri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur after receiving consideration for an amount of Rs. 2,72,000/-. Subsequently, the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a complaint before the District Judge, Bilaspur against the appellant-defendant inter alia alleging that the appellant has committed cheating regarding the purchase of the suit land owned by the plaintiff. On such complaint, the matter was referred to Lokayukt and upon preliminary inquiry by the Lokayukt a criminal case (Special Case No. 07/1999) was registered against the appellant under Sections 420, 467,468,471 and 120 B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said complaint, the 1st respondent alleged that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently. Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Bilaspur dismissed the complaint on 30th November, 1993 by recording a finding that a false complaint has been lodged by the 1st respondent against the appellant.
3. According to the appellant, after more than 14 years on 28th June, 2006 the 1st respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 12A/06 (renumbered as Civil Suit No. 53A of 2011) against the appellant and his father seeking declaration of title and for declaring the sale deed dated 30th November, 1992 as null and void. No reason was shown therein as to why the civil suit was filed after delay of 14 years of execution of the sale deed. In the suit, the 1st respondent admitted that he had filed the complaint against the appellant. The appellant filed his written submission on 28th July, 2007 and categorically raised an objection regarding relief for declaration of sale deed as null and void being barred by limitation. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 22nd November, 2007 stating that inadvertently he was pursuing the criminal proceeding being an illiterate villager he did not initiate a civil proceeding. However, as the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not maintainable in the suit the 1st respondent did not press the application and on 22nd January, 2008 the same was dismissed as not pressed.
4. The appellant filed three applications under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and under Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,1959 raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the civil suit. It was contended that the suit was barred by limitation and hence was liable to be dismissed.
5. The Fourth Civil Judge, Class-1, Bilaspur by order dated 23rd June, 2012 in Civil Suit No. 53-A/2011 dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and the said order was upheld by the High Court by the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the allegation made by the 1st respondent in paragraph 4 of the plaint makes it clear that the alleged sale deed dated 30th November, 1992 was to his knowledge but the 1st respondent filed the
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
