A plaintiff may be required to prove timely filing despite the defendant bearing the limitation burden.

The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 171 of 2024 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad, challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 29 June 2026 below Exh. 27.

The application sought deletion of Issue No. 4, which required the plaintiffs to establish that the suit was filed within limitation. The plaintiffs contended that Issue No. 3 had already placed the burden on the defendants to prove that the suit was barred by limitation.

In the plaint, the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded that the partition suit was within limitation on the basis of a continuing right; the defendants denied that assertion in their written statement.

The Trial Court rejected the application, leading to the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the Trial Court erred in retaining Issue No. 4 and requiring the plaintiffs to prove that the suit was filed within limitation, despite Issue No. 3 placing the burden on the defendants to prove that the suit was barred by limitation?

Whether the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application below Exh. 27 warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which imposes a duty on the Court to examine limitation independently, irrespective of whether the defendant raises a limitation defence.

It further applied the principle governing framing of issues that where the plaintiff pleads that the suit is within limitation and the defendant specifically disputes that plea, an issue regarding limitation arises and may require consideration of the parties’ respective pleadings and evidence.

The Court also relied on the restricted scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, observing that a mere error of law, absent perversity, gross error, or patent illegality, is insufficient to interfere with a Trial Court order; reliance was placed on Sameer Suresh Gupta through PA Holder v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, 2023 (9) SCC 374, and M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 (4) SCC 181.

The High Court found that the plaintiffs themselves had pleaded in paragraph 5 of the plaint, under the heading “limitation,” that the suit was within limitation because the right to seek partition was continuing.

Since the defendants specifically denied that plea, the question whether the suit was within limitation became a disputed issue requiring adjudication.

Consequently, the Trial Court was justified in framing issues placing the relevant burden on both parties rather than deleting Issue No. 4.

In addition, Section 3 of the Limitation Act required the Court to examine limitation independently, even in the absence of a defence.

The High Court therefore held that the Trial Court’s order was neither perverse nor grossly erroneous, and did not justify supervisory interference under Article 227.

Finding no illegality, gross irregularity, or perversity in the order dated 29 June 2026 below Exh. 27, the Court dismissed the Special Civil Application.

No order as to costs was made.