SUKHBIRI DEVI & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 29-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
SUKHBIRI DEVI & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10834 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XIV, r.2(2) – Whether the
issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue u/Or.
XIV, r.2(2) – Held: Yes – The issue of limitation can be framed and
determined as a preliminary issue u/Or. XIV, r.2(2)(b), CPC in a
case where it can be decided on admitted facts – In the present
case, the findings of the Trial Court with respect to preliminary issue
of limitation are based on the relevant dates revealed from the
pleadings of the plaintiffs in the plaint itself – ‘Statements’ by a
party to proceedings are admissions and facts admitted need not be
proved – The manner of consideration by the Trial Court which
ultimately resulted in dismissal of the suit reveals that it had
determined the preliminary issue regarding the period of limitation
with reference to the averments in the plaint and the dismissal of the
suit was in accordance with the decision on the said preliminary
issue – No perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the
courts below warranting interference – Limitation Act,1963 – Article
136, 17, 65 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.17, 18, 58.
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of, against
concurrent findings – Held: Interference with the concurrent
findings in an appeal u/Article 136 is to be made sparingly, that too
when the judgment impugned is absolutely perverse – On
appreciation of evidence, possibility of another view also cannot
be a reason for substitution of a plausible view taken and confirmed.
Deeds and documents – Relinquishment deed – Held:
Consideration of validity of a relinquishment deed and consideration
of the period of limitation with reference to the same are different
and distinct.
Practice and Procedure – Non-mentioning of provision in the
order – Held: Misquoting or non-quoting of a provision by itself
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 523
523
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
will not make an order bad so long as the relevant enabling provision
is in existence and it was correctly applied though without
specifically mentioning it.
Words & Phrases – “admitted facts”, “admission” –
Discussed – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.17, 18, 58.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Interference with the concurrent findings in an
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is to be made
sparingly, that too when the judgment impugned is absolutely
perverse. On appreciation of evidence another view is possible
also cannot be a reason for substitution of a plausible view taken
and confirmed. We will now, bearing in mind the settled position,
proceed to consider as to whether the said appellate power invites
invocation in the case on hand. [Para 4][530-H; 531-A-B]
1.2 ‘Statements’ by a party to proceedings are admissions
and facts admitted need not be proved. The appellants cannot
legally have any dispute or grievance in taking their statements
in the plaint capable of determining the starting point of limitation
for the purpose of application of Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) of the
CPC. Though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it
will shed the said character and would get confined to one of
question of law when the foundational fact(s), determining the
starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the
plaint averments. In such a circumstance, if the Court concerned
is of the opinion that limitation could be framed as a preliminary
point and it warrants postponement of settlement of other issues
till determination of that issue, it may frame the same as a
preliminary issue and may deal with the suit only in accordance
with the decision on that issue. It cannot be said that such an
approach is impermissible in law and in fact, it is perfectly
permissible under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC and legal in such
circumstances. The issue limitation can be framed and determined
as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), CPC in a
case where it can be decided on admitted facts. [Paras 17 and
18][536-D-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
1.3 A perusal of Article 136 of the Limitation Act would
reveal the indubitable position that it applies only when an
application for execution of any decree (other than a decree
granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to
be filed. In the instant such a stage for application of Article 136
of the Limitation Act

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