AHMADASAHAB ABDUL MULLA (D) BY PROPOSED LRS. versus BIBIJAN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 21-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 6 S.C.R. 716 
A AHMADASAHAB ABDUL MULLA (D) BY PROPOSED LRS. 
v. 
BIBIJAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4190 of 2000) 
B 
APRIL 21, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 14 and Art. 54 of the Schedule -
Limitation Act, 1908 - s. 113 - Suit for specific performance of 
c agreement of sale -
Pendency of other suit, filed by 
defendant's wife and children, questioning the said agreement 
of sale and in which plantiff's husband was made a party -
Effect of - Question as to whether cause of action for filing the 
suit in question arose only when the other suit was over - High 
D Court, with reference to s. 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (which 
was in pari materia with Article 54 of the Schedule to the 
Limitation Act, 1963) held that the suit in question was within 
time - Contention of Appellant that the true import of s. 113 of 
the Limitation Act, 1908 was not kept in view by High Court -
E 
Need for clarifying the legal position - Matter referred to larger 
Bench - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 20. 
Respondents filed suit for specific performance of 
an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed by the Trial 
Court but dismissed by the First Appellate Court on the 
F ground of limitation. The First Appellate Court held that 
pendency of the other suit, filed by the defendant's wife 
and children, questioning the said agreement of sale and 
in which Respondent No.1 's husband was made a party, 
did not save the limitation within the meaning of s.14 of 
G the Limitation Act, 1963. Respondents filed second appeal 
before High Court which was admitted on the question of 
law as to whether the cause of action for filing the suit in 
question arose only when the other suit was over. High 
.. 
Court, with reference to s.113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 
H 
716 
AHMADASAHAB ABDUL MULLA (D) BY PROPOSED 
717 
LRS. v. BIBIJAN & ORS. 
(which was in pari materia with Article 54 of the Schedule A 
to the Limitation Act, 1963) held that the suit was within 
time. 
The contention of the Appellant is that the true import 
of s.113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not kept in view 
B 
by the High Court. 
> 
Referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In S. Brahmanand's case, this Court inter 
alia observed that though, at first blush, it may appear that 
use of the expression "date" in Article 54 of the Schedule c 
to the Limitation Act, 1963 is suggestive of a specific date 
in the calendar, the judicial interpretation of this 
expression over a long period of time cannot be ignored. 
The Court observed that different High Courts took 
different views of .the matter, which has been a subject-
D 
matter of controyersy; that some interpreted the 
expression strictly and literally, while others took an 
extended view. [Para 5] [720-C-D, 720-G-H, 721-A] 
1.2. It appears from the judgment in S.Brahmanand's E 
case, this Cou~ felt that there was a need for clarifying 
the legal position, but declined to refer the matter to a 
larger Bench because of the different factual scenario and 
the fact that there were decisions of co-ordinate Bench 
taking a particular view. [Para 7] [725-B-C] 
F 
1.3. In view of the importance of the issues involved, 
it would be proper if the present case is heard by a Bench 
of three Hon'ble Judges. [Para 8] [725-C-D] 
S. Brahmanand v. K.R. Muthugopal (2005) 12 SCC 764; 
Ramzan v. Hussaini (1990) 1 SCC 104; Tar/ok Singh v. Vijay G 
Kumar Sabharwa/ (1996) 8 SCC 367 and Lakshminarayana 
Reddiar v. Singaravelu Naicker & Anr AIR 1963 Mad.24-
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A 4190 of 2000. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.08.1998 of 
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. No. 1225 of 
1996 
Rajesh Mahale and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. 
Javed M. Rao and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka 
High Court allowing the Second appeal filed by the respondents 
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in 
short the 'CPC'). The present respondents are the plaintiffs. They 
had filed the suit for specific performance of the contract on 
sale which was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed on 
the ground of limitation by the first Appellate Court and therefore
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.