Suit Can Be Dismissed As Time-Barred Even If No Specific Issue Regarding Limitation Was Framed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Court can dismiss a suit as time-barred, even if no specific issue regarding limitation was framed.This is because of the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, as per which a Court must dismiss any suit, appeal, or application that is time-barred, even if the defendant has not specifically raised the issue in the pleadings.“The object of framing an issue is to determine the material point of disputes between the parties, for the purpose of adjudication. Issues can be framed on a question of law or fact or a mixed question of law and fact. The decision on the issue settles the lis in favour of either of the parties. A distinct issue is to be formed when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by another. Also, there is no necessity to frame an issue, when the parties are not at dispute on a particular fact or law. At times, despite pleadings, when a specific issue is not framed, but when both the parties to the lis have let in evidence and rendered their arguments on a point, the decision on which is intrinsically connected to the main issue, then the Court is bound to render a finding on the point of dispute before deciding the connected issue, one way or another. In that case, it becomes the duty of the Court to analyze the evidence before it and render a decision on all disputed questions of fact or law, directly or indirectly in issue, so as to put an end to the lis. The Limitation Act,1963 restricts the right of a litigant by prescribing a time limit within which action must be initiated. Its object is to provide a time or period, within which, the action has to be initiated. The object of the Act is not to destroy a vested right available in law but to prevent indefinite litigation and therefore, only prescribes a period for initiation of the litigation.”, the court observed.The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the case where the Madras High Court in a second appeal, without adjudicating the substantial question of law, had remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration after 25 years of prolonged litigation just because no specific issue of limitation was framed by the trial court.Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan termed the High Court's approach to be erroneous stating that, no error was committed by the trial court and first appellate court in dismissing the suit on grounds of limitation by exercising their powers under Section 3 of the Limitation Act regardless of the fact that no issue of limitation was framed by them. The Court stated that the purpose of framing issues is to determine the material point of disputes between the parties, for the purpose of adjudication. Also, it noted that there is no necessity to frame an issue, when the parties are not at dispute on a particular fact or law, because “when both the parties to the lis have let in evidence and rendered their arguments on a point, the decision on which is intrinsically connected to the main issue, then the Court is bound to render a finding on the point of dispute before deciding the connected issue, one way or another.” In other words, it becomes the bounden duty of the court to render a finding on the issue intrinsically connected to the main issue, irrespective of the fact that the issue was not framed during the trial court. Though the issue relating to the limitation, even though not raised in the Appellant/defendant's pleadings, Section 3 mandates the court to ascertain whether the suit filed was within limitation or not, and failure to frame a separate issue of limitation would not prove fatal to the judgment rendered by the trial court. “In the present case, the trial Court though had not framed a specific issue on “limitation”, the same could very well fall under the broader issue. The question of limitation can be encompassed within the larger question determined by the First Appellate Court for determination. The failure of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court to formulate a separate issue, in the view of this Court, is not fatal to the judgment rendered by them and has not caused any prejudice to the parties. Further, the trial Court, in the performance of its duty, mandated under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has taken up the question of limitation and upon perusal of the overall pleadings and evidence, has rightly decided the same. Therefore, we do not agree with the decision of the High Court in remanding the matter to the trial Court, that too after this length of time, when all materials were available before it.”, the court observed. The Court added that failure to frame a separate issue of limitation, being procedural in nature, would not curtail the Court's power to do substantial justice when a specific finding was rendered by the court on issues that were not separately framed. “All that is required under law, is for the...

Suit Can Be Dismissed As Time-Barred Even If No Specific Issue Regarding Limitation Was Framed : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags