Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. – Appellant(s)
Versus
The Central Bank of India & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2514 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30209/2017)
With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2515 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30210/2017)
Decided On : 05-06-2020
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 113 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for a decree for rendition of true and correct accounts in respect of interest/commission charged and deducted by respondent-Bank – Order VII Rule 11 of CPC gives ample power to Court to reject plaint, if from averments in plaint, it is evident that suit is barred by any law including law of limitation – It is bounden duty of Court to examine plaint as a whole and not selected averments therein – Article 113 being a residuary clause and which has been invoked by all three Courts in this case, does not specify happening of particular event as such, but merely refers to accrual of cause of action on the basis of which right to sue would accrue – Cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts – Factum of suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law – Even for that reason, invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is ruled out – Averments in plaint are very explicit to the effect that grievance of appellant about unilateral charging of interest/commission by respondent-Bank was firmly denied or refused by Senior Manager of respondent-Bank – Trial Court had failed to advert to and analyse averments in plaint, but selectively took notice of assertion in plaint in question that appellant became aware about discrepancies in July, 2000, and then proceeded to reject plaint being barred by law of limitation having been filed in February, 2005 – Decisions of trial Court, first appellate Court and High Court in fact situation of present case, rejecting plaint in question under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, cannot be sustained – Same are quashed and set aside – Plaint stands restored to file of trial Court to its original number for being proceeded in accordance with law. (Paras 6, 9, 13, 15, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the Case:
Present appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2.1.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.S.A. No. 391/2016, whereby High Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Civil Judge–05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dated 6.1.2016 in C.S. No. 950/2014 allowing the application filed by respondents/defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, instituted by appellant/plaintiff. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 23.7.2016 in R.C.A. No. 61794/2016 had also affirmed the order of rejecting the plaint. The appellant had filed the stated suit on 23.2.2005 for a decree for rendition of true and correct accounts in respect of the interest/commission charged and deducted by the respondent-Bank relating to current account No. CCM 20225 of the appellant for the period between 1.4.1997 and 31.12.2000 and also for recovery of the excess amount charged by the respondent-Bank consequent to rendition of accounts with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deduction including interest pendente lite realization of amount and future interest.
Findings of the Court:
In present case, as noticed earlier, the trial Court had failed to advert to and analyse the averments in the plaint, but selectively took notice of the assertion in the plaint in question that the appellant became aware about the discrepancies in July, 2000, and then proceeded to reject the plaint being barred by law of limitation having been filed in February, 2005.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2514 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30209/2017)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2.1.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (for short, “the High Court”) in R.S.A. No. 391/2016, whereby the High Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Civil Judge–05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dated 6.1.2016 in C.S. No. 950/2014 allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), instituted by the appellant/plaintiff. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 23.7.2016 in R.C.A. No. 61794/2016 had also affirmed the order of rejecting the plaint. The appellant had filed the stated suit on 23.2.2005 for a decree for rendition of true and correct accounts in respect of the interest/commission charged and deducted by the respondentBank relating to current account No. CCM 20225 of the appellant for the period between 1.4.1997 and 31.12.2000 and also for recovery of the excess amount charged by the respondentBank consequent to rendition of accounts with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deduction including interest pendente lite realization of the amount and future interest.
3. The plaint came to be rejected by the trial Court under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation, as it was filed beyond the period of three years prescribed in Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the 1963 Act”), as applicable to the present case, from the date when the right to sue accrued to the appellant in October, 2000. The entire discussion of the trial Court in that regard can be traced to paragraphs 10 and 11, which read thus:
11. In the present case in hand, as per averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint, the facility was availed by the plaintiff from the defendants till October 2000. Further as per averments made in the plaint the alleged amount so charged by the defendant from the plaintiff, in excess from agreed amount, was till October, 2000. As such, at best can be said right to sue accrues in favour of the plaintiff in October, 2000. Considering the law as stated in above paragraph, plaintiff could have filed the present suit i.e. for rendition of account and repayment of excess amount till October 2003. ...”
After so observing, the trial Court considered the submission of the appellant that the cause of action had accrued to the appellant only upon rejection of the representation by the respondentBank entailing in refusal or denial of liability, communicated to the appellant vide letters dated 19.9.2002 and 3.6.2003 and after the final legal notice was served upon the respondents on 7.1.2005. That contention has been rejected by adverting to the decision of the same High Court in C.P. Kapur vs. The Chairman & Ors., (2013) 198 DLT 56 wherein it is held that exchange of correspondence between the parties cannot extend the limitation period for institution of a suit, once the right to sue had accrued, which in this case had accrued in October, 2000, as has been asserted even in the plaint. Whereas, the suit was filed in February, 2005 beyond the period of three years from the date on which righ
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
