LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure - Case Law

Esheta Lunkad ,
  12 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :
Supreme Court of India
Brief :
The Honorable Supreme Court pointed out the mistake made by the Trial Court and the High Court and gave a judgment setting aside the decree passed by the High Court.
Citation :
Appellant: Malluru Mallapa Respondent: Kuruvathappa

Bench:

Banumathi R, Abdul Nazeer S, Bopanna A S

Issue:

The plaintiff’s case was dismissed by the lower courts without proper examination and the suit was well within the time under limitation act for which the defendant was against.

Facts:

  • The plaintiff filed for specific performance of an agreement which was between him and the defendant.
  • It was mentioned in agreement that the sale was to be executed within 3 years from the date of signature of plaintiff.
  • But the plaintiff did not sign because the defendant failed to fulfill some of the obligations which was required by the plaintiff.
  • Defendant admitted that the agreement to sell in favor of plaintiff, but argued that the suit was barred by limitation.
  • The Trial court gave in favor of the defendant by dismissing the suit stating that plaintiff was not ready to perform his part and the suit itself is barred by time.
  • The Plaintiff further went for an appeal under High Court but got the same judgment for his appeal.
  • The High Court failed to follow guidelines mentioned under Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Appellant's Contentions:

The appellant contends that the High Court has given a judgment without looking on the evidence properly. Learned Counsel for the appellant had stated that High court has failed to follow the Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/appellant had also clearly stated that the time period could only be calculated from the date of the day promised in the contract or can be said as the date fixed for performance, so the suit is well within the time frame and cannot be barred under Limitation Act. The appellant stated that High Court did not inquire about the readiness of performance of a part of contract by the plaintiff.

Respondent's Contention:

The defendant/respondent contends that the suit is barred by Limitation, under the provisions of Limitation Act. The defendant had also stated that the plaintiff/appellant is not ready to perform his part of the contract.

Judgment:

The Honorable Supreme Court pointed out the mistake made by the Trial Court and the High Court and gave a judgment setting aside the decree passed by the High Court.

"The High Court has failed to follow the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC while deciding the appeal. Mr.Bhat has argued that the suit was well within time under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Even this question has not been examined in its proper perspective. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The judgment and decree of the High Court in RFA No.1731 of 2006 dated 09.02.2012, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are left open. There will be no order as to costs." said the Supreme Court of India on February 12, 2020.

 

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

 
"Loved reading this piece by Esheta Lunkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Constitutional Law
Views : 394




Comments




LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query