Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC

 

The Supreme Court determined that a problem of limitation may be framed and determined as a preliminary issue underneath Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC during a case wherever it can be selected admitted facts.

Though, limitation could be a mixed question of law and facts it'll shed the same character and would get confined to 1 of question of law once the foundational fact(s), determinant the start line of limitation is vividly and specifically created within the plaint averments, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed.

In this case, the court framed a preliminary question on "whether the Suit is within the limitation". responsive identical within the negative, the suit was fired. the primary appeals court and also the Old Delhi judicature dismissed the appeals.One of the problems raised by the plaintiff-appellant before the Apex Court was whether or not the difficulty of limitation may be determined as a preliminary issue underneath Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ? The appellant contended that limitation being a mixed question of law and facts, if in the slightest degree that preliminary issue was to be thought-about it have to be compelled to are created under Rule 11, Order VII, CPC and then, subject to its outcome, at the worst, the plaint might are rejected in terms of Clause (d) of Rule eleven of Order VII, CPC.

The court noted that AN admission created by a celebration in his pleadings could be admissible against him proprio vigore. touching on varied selections on now (including Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties [(2020) six SCC 557]) , the court observed:"Though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it'll shed the same character and would get confined to 1 of question of law once the foundational fact(s), determinant the start line of limitation is vividly ANd specifically created within the plaint averments. 

In such a circumstance, if the Court involved is of the opinion that limitation can be framed as a preliminary purpose and it warrants postponement of settlement of different problems until determination of that issue, it's going to frame identical as a preliminary issue and should modify the suit solely in accordance with the choice thereon issue. It can not be same that such an approach is impermissible in law and in fact, it's dead permissible underneath Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC and legal in such circumstances. 

In short, visible of the selections and also the provisions, referred above, it's clear that the difficulty limitation may be framed and determined as a preliminary issue underneath Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC during a case wherever it can be selected admitted facts."Other problems raised by the appellant were: (b) whether or not a bigger amount of limitation of twelve years would be on the market to the plaintiffs to usher in a suit by virtue of application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1968 (for short 'The Act'), as contended by the appellant and within the facts and circumstances obtained in this case? (c) whether or not Article seventeen or Article sixty five of the Act got any application, as contended by the appellants, visible of the plaint averments, just in case Article 136 of the Act is found inapplicable. They were conjointly answered against the appellant.

While dismissing the appeal, the court noted that the findings of the court with relevance preliminary issue of limitation are supported the relevant dates disclosed from the pleadings of the plaintiffs within the plaint itself.Case detailsSukhbiri Hindu deity vs Union of Republic of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810 | CA 10834 OF 2010 | twenty eight September 2022 | Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT RavikumarHeadnotesCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) - Issue of limitation may be framed and determined as a preliminary issue during a case wherever it can be selected admitted facts - although limitation could be a mixed question of law and facts it'll shed the same character and would get confined to 1 of question of law once the foundational fact(s), determinant the start line of limitation is vividly and specifically created within the plaint assertion - Tthe provisions underneath Order XIV Rule 2(1) and Rule 2(2)(b) allow to deal with ANd lose a suit in accordance with the choice on the preliminary issue. (Para 18, 26)Pleadings - Misquoting or non-quoting of a provision by itself won't create an order dangerous see you later because the relevant sanctionative provision is living and it had been properly applied although while not specifically mentioning it. (Para 25)Limitation Act, 1963 ; Article 136 - Article 136 applies only an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a compulsory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed. (Para 20)