AJAY GUPTA versus RAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 05-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 225 
AJAY GUPTA 
v. 
RAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV 
(Civil Appeal No. 5862of2016) 
JULY5,2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963 - ss.4, 5 - Expiry of prescribed period 
when court is closed - On facts, last date for filing the suit was 
31.12.2010, which was last day of winter vacation for court - Next 
day-01.01.2011 was a non-working Saturday - Disposal of 
application filed u/Or. 7 r. 11 on the ground that 01.01.2011 was 
non-working Saturday, thus, the suit filed on 03. 01.2011 is within 
limitation - Held: Jn terms of s. 4, in case the prescribed period for 
any suit expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit may be 
instituted when the court reopens - Further in terms of s. 5 no court 
or tribunal can extend the period of limitation for filing a suit -
01.01.2011 was not a holiday for the Registry- It was a non-working 
Saturday for the Judges to enable them to write judgments and 
regular hearing of cases not heard on a non-working Saturday -
There is no question of any confusion, though such confusion also 
cannot save limitation to file a suit - Even for part of the day the 
registry was not closed - Even if any cause. beyond the control of 
the plaintiff is shown also, the only extension is what is permitted ul 
s. 4 the period coming under court holiday - Thus, the impugned 
order is set aside - Application u/Or. 7 r 11 is allowed and suit is 
dismissed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2012 of the High Court 
of Gwalior at Madhya Pradesh in Revision Petition No. 6 of2012. 
Harshvardhan Surana, Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, Vibhor Vardhan, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by 
KURIAN, J, I. Leave granted. 
225 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
226 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
2. The impugned judgment on limitation to file a suit gives an 
interesting reading on reasoning: 
"Learned trial court has vide impugned order, disposed the 
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the defendant on the 
ground that 01.01.2011 was non-working Saturday, therefore the 
Suit was filed on 03.01.2011 is within limitation. Although, there is 
no bar for filing of Suit on non-working Saturday but ifthe Suit is 
not filed on non-working Saturday under the assumption that it is 
non-working Saturday then the mistake ofnon-filing is a bonafide 
mistake, so the mistake is taken as bonafide mistake." 
3. It is not in dispute that the last date for filing the suit was 
31 .12.2010, the last day of winter vacation for court. 01.01.2011 was a 
Saturday, and even according to the High Court, it is non-working Saturday 
for the Judges for enabling them to write judgments and regular hearing 
of cases is not heard on a non-working Saturday. Obviously, it was not a 
holiday forthe Registry and there is no question ofany confusion, though 
such confusion also cannot save limitation to file a suit. 
4. Section 4 of The Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 
'the Act'), dealing with "Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed", 
no doubt, applies to suits as well, and in case the prescribed period for 
any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, 
the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on 
the day when the court reopens. 
5. The explanation under Section 4 of the Act also makes it clear 
that: 
"Explanation.-A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day 
within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal 
working hours it remains closed on that day." 
6. There is no case for anybody that even for part of the day, the 
Registry was closed. But Section 5 of the Act which deals with 
"Extension of prescribed period in ce1tain cases", applies only to appeals 
or applications and notto suits. Therefore, no court or tribunal can extend 
the period oflimitation for filing a suit. Even if any cause, beyond the 
control of the plaintiff is shown also, the only extension is what is permitted 
under Section 4 of the Act, the period coming under court holiday. 
7. Thus, both the trial court and the High Court have gravely gone 
AJAY GUPTA v. RAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV 
227 
[KURIAN, J.] 
wrong on the first principles on the law of Limitation. Therefore, the 
A 
impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the appellant under 
Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Ci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.