Art. 58 Limitation Act | Limitation Period Begins When Cause Of Action First Arises, Not On Full Knowledge Of Dispute : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the limitation period starts from the date when the cause of action first accrued to the plaintiff, and not when he acquired 'full knowledge' about the same.

It is a settled law that time-barred suits must be dismissed even if the limitation is not pleaded as a defence. An argument was made that the limitation period begins not from the date the first cause of action arises but from the date he acquired complete knowledge of the dispute.

Rejecting such an argument, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti clarified that limitation begins when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the grievance, not when they fully investigate it.

“It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”. First of all, the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action. According to the plaintiff himself, the cause of action for the suit had arisen much earlier. Secondly, the plaintiff has not pleaded any date on which he acquired complete knowledge and that such argument is only an afterthought and appears to be a simple creation of the first appellate Court.”

It was the case where the plaintiff sought a declaration that his father's Will (04.02.2014) and Codicil (20.09.2014) were null and void, alleging fraud. The plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will/Codicil in the first week of November 2014 (as per plaint), and a suit seeking a declaration of the Will/Codicil as null and void were filed on 21.11.2017 i.e., after 3 years and 20 days of first knowledge.

The Civil Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC on the grounds of limitation as the suit was filed beyond the statutory limitation period of three years prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court's reversal of the civil court's decision, the defendant approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal stated that the High Court erred in creating a distinction between the 'knowledge' and 'full knowledge' about the cause of action. The Court said that the limitation starts to run from the date of knowledge of the first cause of action, and not when the plaintiff becomes fully aware of the cause of action.

"In dealing with the submission, the appellate Court distinguished between “having knowledge” and “full knowledge” to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation as the limitation would reckon from the date of full knowledge. It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”. 

Since, the Respondent/plaintiff had first acquired the knowledge of the cause of action i.e., Wills and Codicils of his father in the first week of November (04.02.2014), therefore the filing of the suit on 21.11.2017 was beyond the three-year limitation period as per Art. 58 of the Limitation Act.

Further, the Court rejected the submission that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and that it cannot be decided without allowing the party to lead evidence is of no substance.

Instead, the Court said that when the suit was ex-facie barred by limitation, no evidence is required to be adduced by the parties.

“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 court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the civil court's decision dismissing the suit as barred by limitation.

Case Title: NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA & ANR. VERSUS HITESH P. SANGHVI & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 428

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Manan Daga, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Chawla, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju, Adv.(argued by) (R. No.1) Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Dhanesh R. Patel, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Kumar, Adv.