Court duty to dismiss suit ex-facie barred by limitation regardless of defense or previous findings.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,88,220/- against the Respondent (Defendant), a proprietorship firm, for machinery supplied in September 2012

The Appellant claimed a balance of Rs. 3,92,992/- remained after partial payments via cheques in 2012-2013, plus interest

The Respondent denied any privity of contract, claiming the transaction was handled by a third party, Mr. Mukhvinder Singh Ratan, and further denied the delivery of goods

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 03.10.2024, citing a lack of proof regarding delivery and privity, though it ruled the issue of limitation in favor of the Plaintiff

The Appellant challenged this dismissal via a Regular First Appeal

1. Whether there was a privity of contract between the parties

2. Whether the goods were delivered to the Defendant/Respondent

3. Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation

The Court applied Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that facts admitted in pleadings or by the parties need not be proved

Regarding the mandatory nature of limitation, the Court relied on Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates the dismissal of any suit instituted after the prescribed period regardless of whether a defense of limitation is raised

The Court further cited Supreme Court precedents such as Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee and V.M. Salgaocar & Bros v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao, establishing that the Court has a duty to dismiss ex facie time-barred suits as a pure question of law

The High Court reversed the Trial Court's findings on the first two issues. It held that privity was established because the Defendant admitted that Mr. Ratan was its authorized employee/contractor and the Defendant’s proprietor admitted to signing cheques in the Plaintiff’s name for the exact invoice amount

Delivery was proven because the Transportation Slip and Invoice specifically mentioned a project site ("Lotus Espacia") admittedly managed by the Defendant

On the issue of limitation, the Court found the Plaintiff's claim to be time-barred. The last actual payment was made on 09.05.2013, making the limitation period expire in May 2016. The Court determined that the two "Debit Notes" for interest created by the Plaintiff in 2017 were "self-serving entries" manufactured solely to reset the limitation period, as there was no agreement for interest and no demand made between 2013 and 2017

The High Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, albeit for different reasons than the Trial Court. The Appeal and all pending applications were dismissed