“‘Suit Barred as Cause of Action Arose in 2014’: Supreme Court Restores Trial Court’s Order, Calls ‘Full Knowledge’ Argument a ‘Complete Fallacy’”
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court judgement and restored the trial court's decision rejecting a civil suit as barred by limitation. The Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the judgment in a civil appeal arising out of a special leave petition, holding that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court recorded: "Accordingly, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 08.02.2024 is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The plaint stands rejected as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
The dispute arose when the plaintiff, Hitesh P. Sanghvi, filed Civil Suit No. 1758/2017 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against four defendants—Smt. Harshaben Vijay Mehta, Smt. Nikhila Divyang Mehta, Smt. Ami Rajesh Parikh, and Shri Nilav Divyang Mehta. The suit sought a declaration that the Will dated 04.02.2014 and Codicil dated 20.09.2014, allegedly executed by his deceased father Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, were null and void, along with consequential reliefs including a permanent injunction.
According to the plaint, the testator passed away on 21.10.2014. The plaintiff averred that the existence of the Will and Codicil was revealed to him in the first week of November 2014 by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that these documents were false, fabricated, and thus legally non-binding.
Defendants Nos. 2, 3, and 4 filed applications (Exhibits 25, 28, and 33 respectively) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that the suit was barred by limitation. They submitted that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit should have been instituted within three years of acquiring knowledge of the Will and Codicil, which, as per the plaintiff's own averments, occurred in November 2014. Since the suit was filed on 21.11.2017, they argued it was beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The City Civil Court agreed and rejected the plaint, finding it barred by limitation on a plain reading of the pleadings.
However, the Gujarat High Court reversed the trial court’s judgement by order dated 08.02.2024. The High Court reasoned that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact that should be determined after allowing parties to lead evidence. It also noted that since multiple reliefs were claimed in the suit, the plaint could not be rejected in entirety based on limitation applicable to one relief.
The Supreme Court examined the pleadings and legal submissions. It held that the main relief in the suit was a declaration that the Will and Codicil were null and void, with other prayers being merely consequential.
Referring to the relevant legal provisions, the Court observed: "Article 58 would stand attracted which provides for a limitation period of three years to obtain any other declaration other than that mentioned under Articles 56 and 57."
It further recorded: "The use of the words 'when the right to sue first accrues' as mentioned in Article 58 is very relevant and important. It categorically provides that the limitation of three years has to be counted from the date when the right to sue first accrues."
Quoting paragraph 3(o) and paragraph 4 of the plaint, the Court noted the plaintiff's admission: "...defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the first week of November, 2014 disclosed to the plaintiff that the deceased had not only executed a Will but had even executed a Codicil."
Thus, the right to sue first accrued in November 2014. The suit was instituted on 21.11.2017, after the expiration of the limitation period.
On this basis, the Court stated: "The suit admittedly was instituted on 21.11.2017; much beyond the first week of November, 2017 and as such is apparently barred by limitation, for which neither any defence is required to be looked into nor any evidence in support is needed to be adduced."
The judgment addressed the High Court’s view that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, stating: "In the present case, we have earlier noted that the suit was admittedly instituted on 21.11.2017 whereas according to the plaint averments the cause of action first arose on 04.02.2014. Even assuming that the cause of action last arose in the first week of November, 2014, the suit ought to have been filed by 07.11.2017. The suit was filed on 21.11.2017. It was ex-facie barred by limitation for which, no evidence was required to be adduced by the parties."
The Bench rejected the High Court’s reliance on the plaintiff's alleged lack of "full knowledge" of the Will and Codicil, terming the distinction between "knowledge" and "full knowledge" fallacious: "It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between 'knowledge' and 'full knowledge'."
The Court also dismissed the High Court’s observation that since multiple reliefs were sought, the plaint should not be rejected in toto. It stated: "...once the plaint or the suit in respect of the main relief stands barred by time, the other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down."
The Supreme Court concluded:
"Accordingly, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 08.02.2024 is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The plaint stands rejected as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Shri Bhadrish S. Raju, Advocate
Case Title: Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 485
Case Number: Civil Appeal No.of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13459 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
[Read/Download order]
