Failure to grant opportunity to rectify pleading defects or lead evidence on limitation warrants remand.

The petitioner and respondents are cousins who partitioned ancestral agricultural land in Mauje Vankaner Chhapra

The petitioner alleged that in 2023, the respondents obstructed a traditional pathway by placing bushes and articles

He filed a suit (Case No. 1/2024) under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906

The Mamlatdar dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, relying solely on an oral statement made by the defendant during a spot panchnama that the road had been blocked for over three years

The Deputy Collector confirmed this in Revision Case No. 02/2024 without addressing the petitioner's specific contention that the obstruction occurred on 17.12.2023

1. Whether the Mamlatdar was legally justified in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation based solely on an oral statement without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to lead evidence or rectify pleading defects

2. Whether the lack of specific particulars like the exact date of cause of action in an informal petition is a fatal defect warranting summary dismissal under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act

The Court primarily applied Sections 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906

Section 5(3) mandates that suits must be filed within six months of the cause of action

Section 7 lists necessary plaint particulars, including the date of the cause of action

Section 8 requires the Mamlatdar to treat informal petitions as plaints

Section 9 mandates that if a plaint lacks particulars, the Mamlatdar must examine the plaintiff on oath to reduce those particulars to writing and grant time for rectification rather than dismissing the suit

The Court reasoned that the petitioner, a "rustic villager," had filed an informal application lacking the exact date of the cause of action

Under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the Mamlatdar had a statutory duty to examine the petitioner on oath to clarify these details and allow rectification of defects

Instead, the Mamlatdar and the Revisional Authority relied exclusively on an uncorroborated oral statement by the defendant made during a panchnama to determine the limitation period

The Court held that "positive evidence" was required to establish a bar of limitation, and deciding the matter without permitting witnesses to be examined or documents to be proved was a procedural illegality not in consonance with the Act

The Revisional Authority further erred by failing to record specific findings on the petitioner's claimed date of obstruction (17.12.2023)

The High Court quashed the Mamlatdar’s order dated 16.04.2024 and the Assistant Collector’s order dated 16.10.2024. The matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar, Bhiloda, for fresh adjudication after providing all parties an adequate opportunity to lead evidence and a hearing in accordance with the law; Rule made absolute