Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6363 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.37163 of 2012)
SURESH KUMAR DAGLA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
SARWAN & ANR … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant
th
no.1 against the order dated 12 September, 2012 passed by the
High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Civil Revision No.120 of
2012. By the impugned order, the High Court upheld the Trial
rd
Court’s order dated 23 June, 2012 refusing to allow the
application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as, “the CPC”) for dismissal of suit on the ground
that the suit is barred under the law and thereby dismissed the
civil revision application.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neeta Sapra
Date: 2014.08.26
17:45:24 IST
Reason:
st th
The 1 respondent executed a registered sale deed dated 30
November, 1992 in favour of the appellant and his father in
2
respect of land admeasuring 0.64 acres in Khasra No.445; land
admeasuring 1.71 acres in Khasra No.625; land admeasuring 0.42
acres in Khasra No.575; land admeasuring 0.22 acres in Khasra
No.576 of agricultural land situated in Village Sakri, Tehsil
Takhatpur, District Bilaspur after receiving consideration for an
st
amount of Rs.2,72,000/-. Subsequently, the 1
respondent-plaintiff filed a complaint before the District Judge,
Bilaspur against the appellant-defendant inter alia alleging that
the appellant has committed cheating regarding the purchase of
the suit land owned by the plaintiff. On such complaint, the
matter was referred to Lokayukt and upon preliminary inquiry by
the Lokayukt a criminal case (Special Case No.07/1999) was
registered against the appellant under Sections 420, 467,468,471
and 120 B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of
st
Corruption Act, 1988. In the said complaint, the 1 respondent
alleged that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently. Additional
Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Bilaspur dismissed the complaint
th
on 30 November, 1993 by recording a finding that a false
st
complaint has been lodged by the 1 respondent against the
appellant.
th
3. According to the appellant, after more than 14 years on 28
st
June, 2006 the 1 respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 12A/06
3
(renumbered as Civil Suit No.53A of 2011) against the appellant
and his father seeking declaration of title and for declaring the
th
sale deed dated 30 November, 1992 as null and void. No reason
was shown therein as to why the civil suit was filed after delay
st
of 14 years of execution of the sale deed. In the suit, the 1
respondent admitted that he had filed the complaint against the
th
appellant. The appellant filed his written submission on 28
July, 2007 and categorically raised an objection regarding relief
for declaration of sale deed as null and void being barred by
st
limitation. Thereafter, the 1 respondent filed an application
nd
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 22 November, 2007
stating that inadvertently he was pursuing the criminal
proceeding being an illiterate villager he did not initiate a
civil proceeding. However, as the petition under Section 5 of
st
the Limitation Act was not maintainable in the suit the 1
nd
respondent did not press the application and on 22 January,
2008 the same was dismissed as not pressed.
4. The appellant filed three applications under Order 7 Rule 11
read with Section 151 CPC and under Section 257 of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,1959 raising preliminary
objections with regard to maintainability of the civil suit. It
was contended that the suit was barred by limitation and hence
was liable to be dismissed.
4
5. The Fourth Civil Judge, Class-1, Bilaspur by order dated
rd
23 June, 2012 in Civil Suit No.53-A/2011 dismissed the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and
the said order was upheld by the High Court by the impugned
order.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits
st
that the allegation made by the 1 respondent in paragraph 4 of
th
the plaint makes it clear that the alleged sale deed dated 30
st
November, 1992 was to his knowledge but the 1 respondent filed
th
the civil suit on 28 August, 2006 after lapse of 14 years which
is much beyond 3 years of limitation for filing suit for
declaration in terms of Article 56 of the Limitation Act.
Therefore, the suit was time barred and there is no provision for
extension of time.
st
7. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the 1
respondent, the suit is not barred in terms of Section 257 of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1957.
8. We have noticed the rival contentions made on behalf of the
parties and perused the record. As per paragraph 4 of the copy of
st
the plaint, the case of 1 respondent is that the appellant has
succeeded in registration of the sale deed in favour of himself
st
by inducing the 1 respondent to believe that he will be
executing the sale deed in favour of the State and the State will
5
pay the consideration which is not paid till filing of the civil
suit and has not taken possession. Therein at paragraph 17 it is
stated that cause of action arose in the month of August, 2006.
The High Court noticed that paragraph 17 of the plaint is cryptic
but observed that it would not be possible for the Court to infer
st
that the 1 respondent was having knowledge about the alleged
deed prior to August, 2006.
st
9. The 1 respondent has not disputed the fact that he had
already instituted a case alleging therein that the appellant
inter alia cheated him while purchasing the said land which was
th
rejected on 30 September, 1993. From the aforesaid fact, it is
st
clear that the 1 respondent had knowledge about the sale deed
and as back as in the month of September, 1993.
10. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the suit was
st
barred by limitation and thereby 1 respondent cannot derive any
benefit in terms of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code, 1959.
th
11. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 12
September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh,
rd
Bilaspur in Civil Revision No.120 of 2012; order dated 23 June,
th
2012 passed by the 4 Civil Judge, Class-1, Bilaspur in Civil
Suit No.53-A/2011, allow the application filed by the appellant
under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC and
6
dismiss the suit as barred by limitation. The appeal is allowed
with aforesaid observation. No costs.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
(S.A. BOBDE)
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 26,2014.
7
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.5 SECTION IV
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6363/2014
Arising from SLP(C) No. 37163/2012
SURESH KUMAR DAGLA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SARWAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 26/08/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Kunal Verma ,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais ,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench
comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A.
Bobde.
The appeal is allowed with no costs.
(Neeta) (Usha Sharma)
Sr. P.A. COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)