AHMMADSAHAB ABDUL MULLA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. versus BIBIJAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 01-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Reference answered
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 476 
A 
AHMMADSAHAB ABDUL MULLA (DEAD) BY 
PROPOSED LRS. 
v. 
BIBIJAN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4190 of 2000) 
B 
APRIL 01, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND ASOK 
KUMAR GANG UL Y, JJ.] 
c 
UM/TA TION ACT, 1963: 
Schedule - Article 54 - Word 'date' occurring in the 
expression 'date fixed for the performance' - HELD: Is •
suggestive of a specified date in the calendar. 
. 
D 
In the instant appeal the question referred to three-
Judge Bench for consideration was: whether the 
expression "date" used in Article 54 of the Schedule to 
the Limitation Act, 1963 is suggestive of a specific date 
in the calendar. 
E 
Answering the reference, the Court 
HELD: On analyzing the expressions 'date' and 
'fixed', the inevitable conclusion is that the expression 
I, 
-
F 'date fixed for the performance' used in Article 54 of the 
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is a crystallized 
notion. This is clear from the fact that the second part 
"time from which period begins to run" refers to a case 
where no such date is fixed. When date is fixed, it means 
G 
that there is a definite date fixed for doing a particular act. 
Even in the second part the stress is on 'when the 
plaintiff has notice that performance is refused'. Here 
, 
again, there is a definite point of time, when the plaintiff 
notices the refusal. In that sense both the parts refer to 
definite dates. So, there is no question of finding out an 
H 
476 
AHMMADSAHAB ABDUL MULLA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED 477 
LRS. v. BIBIJAN AND ORS. 
intention from other circumstances. Whether the date 
A 
was fixed or not, the plaintiff had notice that performance 
is refused and the date thereof is to be established with 
reference to materials and evidence to be brought on 
record. The expression 'date' used in Article 54 of the 
Schedule to the Act definitely is suggestive of a specified 
8 
). 
date in the calendar. [Para 7] [481-D-F] 
S. Brahmanand v. K.R. Muthugopal 200~ (12) SCC 764; 
Ramzan v. Hussaini 1990 (1) SCC 104 and Tarfok Singh v. 
Vijay Kumflr Sabharwal 1996 (8) SCC 367, distinguished. c 
Kashi Prasad v. Chhabi Lal AIR 1933 All 412; Alopi 
Parshad v. Court of Wards AIR 1938 Lah 23; Lala Ram 
Sarup v. Court of Wards AIR 1940 PC 19; Kruitiventi 
Mallikharjuna Rao v. Vemuri Pardhasaradhirao AIR 1944 
""" 
Mad 218; R. Muniswami Goundar v. B.M. Shamanna Gouda 
D 
~ " 
AIR 1950 Mad 820; Hutchegowda v. H.M. Basaviah AIR 1954 
Mys 29; Purshottam Sava v. Kunverji Devji AIR 1954 Sau 
104; Lakshminarayana Reddiar v. Singaravelu Naicker AIR 
1963 Mad 24; Shrikrishna Keshav Kulkarni v. Balaji Ganesh 
Kulkarni AIR 1976 Born 342 and P. Sivan Muthiah v. John 
E 
Sathiavasagam 1990 (1) MLJ 490, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2005 (12) sec 764 
distinguished 
para 1 
.~ 
1990 (1) sec 104 
distinguished 
para 1 
F 
-
1996 (8) sec 367 
distinguished 
para 1 
AIR 1933 All 412 
referred to 
para 1 
.... 
AIR 1938 Lah 23 
referred to 
para 1 
G 
AIR 1940 PC 19 
referred to 
para 1 
.. 
-( 
AIR 1944 Mad 218 
referred to 
para 1 
AIR 1950 Mad 820 
referred to 
para 1 
H 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
AIR 1954 Mys 29 
referred to 
para 1 
AIR 1954 Sau 104 
referred to 
para 1 
AIR 1963 Mad 24 
referred to 
para 1 
B 
AIR 1976 Born 342 
referred to 
para 1 
1990 (1) MLJ 490 
referred to 
para 1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4190 of 2000. 
c 
I 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.08.1998 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RS.A. No. 1225 of 1996. 
Rajesh Mahale for·the Appellants. 
D 
Mohan V. Katarki and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the 
Respondent. 
t 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. A reference was made to a 
E 
three-Judge Bench, by reference order dated 21st April, 2008. 
The relevant question is whether the use of the expression 
"date" used in Article 54 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 
(in short the 'Act') is suggestive of a specific date in the 
calendar. In S. Brahmanand v. K.R. Muthugopal (2005 (12) 
F 
SCC 764) a Bench of this Court did not go into this issue. It 
) -
decided the appeal on the factual scenario applicable. It was 
however noticed that several High Courts have dealt with the 
matter differently. In all these cases, for example in Kashi 
Prasad v. Chhabi Lal (AIR 1933 All 412), Alopi Parshad v. 
G Court of Wards (AIR 1938 Lah 23), Lala Ram Sarup v. Court 
• 
of Wards (AIR 1940 PC 19), Kruitiventi Mal/ikharjuna Rao v. 
Vemuri Pardhasaradhirao (AIR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.