In CR-5784-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Where issue of limitation is a mixed question of law & fact, Sec.3 of Limitation Act will not come to rescue & ground of limitation will have to be raised in pleadings: P&H HC
Justice Nidhi Gupta [02-06-2023]

Read Order:Sukhbir Singh Vs. Gaje Singh (since Deceased) Through LRs & Others 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, June 8, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that issues are to be framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and defendants are obligated to specifically plead in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation when issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts

Referring to the judgment of the Top Court in Narne Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram ,the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta held, “Thus, from a reading of the above pronouncements it becomes clear that in cases where issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, Section 3 of the Limitation Act will not come to the rescue, and it is required that ground of limitation be raised in the pleadings.”

The facts of the case were that the plaintiffs/respondents  filed a Civil Suit for declaration to the effect that a gift deed was void illegal and not binding upon the rights of plaintiffs with consequential relief of permanent injunction. On notice, the petitioner and respondents appeared, and filed written statement . Issues were framed and trial commenced.

However, the defendants sought the framing of additional issues including issue regarding limitation, submitting that the above said suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as challenge therein was laid in 2016 to gift deed of 2009. Vide the impugned order the said application of the defendants had been dismissed. Hence, Revision Petition was filed before the High Court.

The Bench noted that it was submitted by the plaintiffs that they got knowledge of the disputed gift deed only in the year 2013. Perusal of the plaint revealed that the plaintiffs had specifically averred that during the proceedings of Civil Suit decided in 2014, in the year 2013 they came to know about the gift deed. In the plaint, the plaintiffs had pleaded about accrual of cause of action in 2013. 

“Therefore, limitation in the present case is not just a pure question of law, as evidence will have to be led as to when the plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the gift deed. It therefore, becomes a mixed question of law and fact”, the Bench opined.

It was also noticed that there was no plea that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred had been taken in the written statement but, even in the written statement filed by the petitioner and proforma respondents, the averments of the plaint had not been properly controverted. “ Clearly, Section 3 of Limitation Act is applicable only when limitation is a pure question of law whereas in the present case question of limitation is of law and fact and therefore, pleading to such effect was required”, the Bench added.

The trial commenced in the matter on May 25, 2017 when issues were framed, plaintiff was cross examined on October 30, 2017, evidence of the plaintiffs was completed & evidence of defendants was going on when the petitioner filed the present application over two years hence, on November 18, 2019 at the fag end of trial. It was observed that the plaintiffs had already led evidence, defendants’ evidence was going on, and so framing of additional issues at this stage would result in de novo trial. Further, without amendment of written statement issue of limitation couldn’t be framed. No application for amendment had been filed by the defendant to raise a plea of suit being time barred. 

Reiterating that no evidence can be led with respect to a fact which has not been pleaded, the Bench held that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition.