SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 532

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
AJAY GUPTA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5862 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27853 of 2012)
Decided On : 05-07-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
No Court or Tribunal can extend period of limitation for filing a suit.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 4 and 5 – Limitation – Extension of period – Section 5 of Act which deals with extension of prescribed period in certain cases, applies only to appeals or applications and not to suits – No Court or Tribunal can extend period of limitation for filing a suit – Even if any cause beyond control of plaintiff is shown also, only extension is what is permitted under Section 4 of the Act, period coming under court holiday. (Para 6)

       Facts of Case:

       Point in issue concerns extension of period of limitation in filing suit. Trial court extended period of limitation on ground of bonafide mistake giving rise to present appeal.

       Findings of Court:

       Both trial court and High Court have gravely gone wrong on first principles on law of Limitation. Therefore, t impugned order is set aside. Application filed by appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. Recovery Suit is dismissed.

       Result – Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The impugned judgment on limitation to file a suit gives an interesting reading on reasoning:

“Learned trial court has vide impugned order, disposed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the defendant on the ground that 01.01.2011 was non-working Saturday, therefore the Suit was filed on 03.01.2011 is within limitation. Although, there is no bar for filing of Suit on non-working Saturday but if the Suit is not filed on non-working Saturday under the assumption that it is non-working Saturday then the mistake of non-filing is a bonafide mistake, so the mistake is taken as bonafide mistake.”

3. It is not in dispute that the last date for filing the suit was 31.12.2010, the last day of winter vacation for court. 01.01.2011 was a Saturday, and even according to the High Court, it is non-working Saturday for the Judges for enabling them to write judgments and regular hearing of cases is not heard on a non-working Saturday. Obviously, it was not a holiday for the Registry and there is no question of any confusion, though such confusion also cannot save limitation to file a suit.

4. Section 4 of The Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dealing with “Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed”, no doubt, applies to suits as well, and in case the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.

5. The explanation under Section 4 of the Act also makes it clear that:

“Explanation.-A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.”

6. There is no case for anybody that even for part of the day, the Registry was closed. But Section 5 of the Act which deals with “Extension of prescribed period in certain cases”, applies only to appeals or applications and not to suits. Therefore, no court or tribunal can extend the period of limitation for filing a suit. Even if any cause, beyond the control of the plaintiff is shown also, the only extension is what is permitted under Section 4 of the Act, the period coming under court holiday.

7. Thus, both the trial court and the High Court have gravely gone wrong on the first principles on the law of Limitation. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. Recovery Suit No. 1/2011 on the file of the ADJ, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh is dismissed.

8. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top