In Civil Appeal No.10834 of 2010-SC- Issue of limitation can be framed and determined as preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of CPC in case where it can be decided on admitted facts: Supreme Court
Justices C.T. Ravikumar & Ajay Rastogi [29-09-2022]

Read Judgment: SUKHBIRI DEVI & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, September 30, 2022: Interference with the concurrent findings in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is to be made sparingly, that too when the judgment impugned is absolutely perverse. On appreciation of evidence, the possibility of  another view also cannot be a reason for substitution of a plausible view taken and confirmed, the Supreme Court has observed.

The Division Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Ajay Rastogi dismissed the instant appeal by Special Leave directed against the order of the Delhi High Court and said, “In short, in view of the decisions and the provisions, referred above, it is clear that the issue limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.”

In this matter, the Trial Court framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation, evidently, upon forming the opinion that case may be disposed of on an issue of law and that it warrants postponement of settlement of other issues until after that issue has been determined and to deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.

Accordingly, the Trial Court framed a preliminary question as to “whether the Suit is within the limitation”. Upon answering the same in the negative, in accordance with the said decision, the suit was dismissed. The defendants challenged the said judgment before the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, (First Appellate Court) wherby the appeal was dismissed.

Thereupon, they took up the matter in a second appeal before the High Court. As per the impugned judgment, the High Court concurred with the findings and dismissed the appeal answering the question of law against the appellants.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court at the outset noted that the challenge in this appeal was against concurrent findings by three Courts.  

A bare perusal of the plaint would reveal that the suit was instituted for declaratory reliefs, inter alia, stating that the cause of action arose when application for alternative plot was made by the fifth Defendant by playing fraud and claiming himself to be the sole and exclusive heir of deceased Rama Nand and further when objections through representations were made to the wrongful application of allotment, on number of dates.

Further, the Court noted that the issue of whether the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2, and CPC is no longer res integra.

The appellants cannot legally have any dispute or grievance in taking their statements in the plaint capable of determining the starting point of limitation for the purpose of application of Order XIV, Rule 2(2) (b) of the CPC. Though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when the foundational fact(s), determining the starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the plaint averments, the Court held. 

 In such a circumstance, if the Court concerned is of the opinion that limitation could be framed as a preliminary point and it warrants postponement of settlement of other issues till determination of that issue, it may frame the same as a preliminary issue and may deal with the suit only in accordance with the decision on that issue. It cannot be said that such an approach is impermissible in law and in fact, it is perfectly permissible under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC and legal in such circumstances, the Court noted. 

Thus, the Bench clarified that the issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) (b), CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.

 A perusal of Article 136 of the Limitation Act would reveal the indubitable position that it applies only when an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed, the Court further noted. 

In the instant case, the Court noted that such a stage for application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act had not reached and, in fact, the question involved is relatable only to the time restriction for initiating legal proceedings to seek the alleged legal right. In the said circumstances, the inevitable conclusion can only be that Article 136 got no application in the case on hand and as such the appellants could not claim for a larger period of limitation of 12 years.

Without finding any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below warranting interference in invocation of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Bench dismissed the appeal.