INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION versus SRI BALA & CO.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 07-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 542 : 2025 INSC 42
Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association 
v. 
Sri Bala & Co.
(Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 2023)
08 January 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the plaint in the subsequent suit for specific performance 
filed by the plaintiff, i.e., O.S. No. 49/2007, is liable to be rejected in 
terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
on the ground that the said suit is barred by the law of limitation.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, r.11(d) – Limitation Act, 
1963 – Arts. 54 and 113 – The plaintiff filed an unnumbered suit 
in the year 1993 for specific performance of the agreement to 
sell dated 26.04.1991 – The said suit was rejected vide order 
dated 12.01.1998 due to non-payment of requisite court-fees 
by the plaintiff – Thereafter, plaintiff filed second suit O.S. No. 
49/2007 in the year 2007 for specific performance of agreement 
to sell dated 26.04.1991 – The defendant sought rejection of 
the second suit by filing I.A. u/Or. VII, r.11(d) of the CPC, which 
was dismissed by the Trial Court – The High Court confirmed 
the order passed by the Trial Court – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit 
for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.04.1991 
in the year 1993 itself – The plaint in the said suit was rejected 
on 12.01.1998 – The plaintiff could have filed the second suit on 
or before 12.01.2001 as it got right to file the suit on 12.01.1998 
on the rejection of the plaint in the earlier suit filed by it – This is 
on the basis of Or. VII, r.13 of the Code – However, the limitation 
period expired in January, 2001 itself and the second suit was filed 
belatedly in the year 2007 – The cause of action by then faded and 
paled into oblivion – The right to sue stood extinguished – The suit 
was barred in law as being filed beyond the prescribed period of 
limitation of three years as per Article 113 to the Schedule to the 
Limitation Act – Hence the second suit is barred u/Or. VII, r.11(d) 
of the Code – Therefore, the plaint in O.S No. 49/2007 filed by the 
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
543
Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. 
Sri Bala & Co.
respondent herein is rejected – There is absence of any evidence 
being recorded on the issue of limitation – This is on the admitted 
facts – Thus, on the basis of Or. VII, r.11(d) of the Code r/w. Art.113 
of the Limitation Act, the impugned orders of the High Court and 
the Trial Court are set aside and the application filed u/Or. VII, 
r.11(d) of the Code is allowed. [Para 9.12]
Limitation Act, 1963 – Nature and scope:
Held: The Limitation Act, 1963 consolidates and amends the law 
of limitation of suits, appeals and applications and for purposes 
connected therewith – The law of limitation is an adjective law 
containing procedural rules and does not create any right in 
favour of any person, but simply prescribes that the remedy can 
be exercised only up to a certain period and not beyond – The 
Limitation Act therefore does not confer any substantive right, 
nor defines any right or cause of action – The law of limitation is 
based on delay and laches – Unless there is a complete cause of 
action, limitation cannot run and there cannot be a complete cause 
of action unless there is a person who can sue and a person who 
can be sued. [Para 9]
Law of Limitation – Right of plaintiff:
Held: The barring of the remedy under the law of limitation on the 
expiry of the limitation period would not imply plaintiff’s right being 
extinguished – Only the possibility of obtaining a judicial remedy 
to enforce the right is taken away – However, in certain cases, 
the expiry of the period of limitation would extinguish the plaintiff’s 
right to seek remedy entirely. [Para 9.2]
Limitation Act, 1963 – Art. 113 – Residuary Article – Omnibus 
Article:
Held: If a suit is not covered by any of the specific articles prescribing 
a period of limitation, it must fall within the residuary article – The 
purpose of the residuary article is to provide for cases which could 
not be covered by any other provision in the Limitation Act – The 
residuary article is applicable to every variety of suits not otherwise 
provided for under the Limitation Act – It prescribes a period of 
three years from the date when the “right to sue” accrues – Under 
Article 120 of the erstwhile Limitation Ac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.