Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Introduction:
The Supreme Court held that a civil suit can be dismissed as time-barred even if no specific issue of limitation was framed during trial. The Court emphasized the mandatory duty cast on courts by Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to reject any suit filed beyond the limitation period, irrespective of whether the defendant raised it in the pleadings.
- Section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 – Bar of limitation to be considered by court suo motu.
- Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 – On framing of issues (Order XIV Rule 1).
Facts of the Case:
The case arose from a prolonged civil dispute lasting over 25 years. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, though it had not framed any specific issue on limitation. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
However, the Madras High Court, in second appeal, remanded the case back to the trial court on the ground that no specific issue of limitation was framed.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether a civil court can dismiss a suit as time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even when no specific issue on limitation was framed?
- Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter for a fresh trial due to the procedural lapse of not framing a specific issue on limitation?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The dismissal by the trial court was valid under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which makes it mandatory for courts to dismiss time-barred suits. The absence of a framed issue on limitation did not prejudice either party, especially since arguments and evidence were led on that point. The High Court’s remand order after 25 years was unjust and against the interest of judicial economy.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Argued that no specific issue on limitation was framed, hence the dismissal on limitation grounds was improper. Claimed that such a decision without a framed issue and proper adjudication amounted to a denial of fair trial.
Court’s Analysis:
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is mandatory in nature; courts are bound to consider limitation even if not raised by parties. Framing of issues is procedural, and the absence of a specific issue on limitation does not vitiate the trial if evidence and arguments were presented. Courts must render findings on material points intrinsically connected to the lis, even if not specifically framed as an issue.
Procedural laws are meant to aid justice, not obstruct it—CPC and Limitation Act are procedural, not substantive laws. The remand by the High Court, after such a long delay, was unwarranted, as the trial and appellate courts had substantively dealt with the issue of limitation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s remand order, and restored the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit as time-barred.
Held that failure to frame a limitation issue is not fatal, and courts can dismiss suits on limitation grounds under Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
Reaffirmed that substantial justice must prevail over procedural irregularities unless real prejudice is shown.
