the Bench Comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti
Introduction
This Supreme Court judgment deals with the interpretation of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, focusing on when the limitation period begins in suits for declaration. The Court clarified that limitation begins when the cause of action first arises, not when the plaintiff acquires “full knowledge” of the dispute. The judgment also reiterates the principle that a time-barred suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, even if limitation is not pleaded as a defense.
- Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963
Prescribes a 3-year limitation period for declaratory suits, starting when the right to sue first accrues.
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Provides for rejection of plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law (e.g., limitation).
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff filed a civil suit on 21.11.2017, seeking a declaration that:
- His father’s Will dated 04.02.2014 and Codicil dated 20.09.2014 were null and void on the grounds of fraud.
As per the plaint, the plaintiff came to know about the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding it to be barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act (3 years). The High Court reversed the trial court's order, accepting the plaintiff’s argument that limitation should run from the date of acquiring full knowledge. Aggrieved, the defendant approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act starts from the date of “first knowledge” or “full knowledge” of the cause of action?
- Whether the plaint was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as being ex-facie barred by limitation?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The suit is barred by limitation as it was filed after 3 years from the date when the plaintiff admittedly gained knowledge of the Will and Codicil. The concept of "full knowledge" is legally unfounded and cannot extend the limitation period. The plaint itself shows the suit is ex-facie time-barred, thus Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC applies. No evidence is required when limitation is evident from the plaint.
Contentions of the Respondent
Limitation should begin from the date when the plaintiff acquired complete (full) knowledge of the facts constituting the cause of action. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and hence, should not be decided without allowing evidence.
Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” as a complete fallacy.
As per Article 58, limitation begins when the cause of action first arises, not when a party finishes their investigation or becomes fully aware. The Court found the High Court erred in relying on the concept of "full knowledge." Held that limitation is a pure question of law when the facts stated in the plaint themselves show the suit to be time-barred. The argument that evidence was needed to determine limitation was found without substance. Since the plaintiff admitted he came to know about the Will in November 2014, the limitation expired by 07.11.2017. The suit was filed on 21.11.2017, hence ex-facie barred.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the appeal.
- Set aside the High Court's decision.
- Restored the civil court’s order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by limitation.
The judgment reinforces that:
“Limitation begins from the date when the cause of action first arises, not when the plaintiff gains full knowledge.”
