VITHALBHAI PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 11-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VITHALBHAI PVT. LTD. 
~ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
MARCH 11, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
c 
Premature suit-Power of Courts to entertain-Held: The power is 
discretionary-Court can entertain the premature suit if on the date of filing 
of written statement or passing of decree the plaintiff is found entitled to the 
relief prayed for in the plaint and no prejudice is caused to the defendant-
However, if the defendant by acquiescence or waiver allows the suit to proceed 
ahead then he cannot be permitted to raise such a plea belatedly as that 
D would cause hardship, may be irreparable prejudice, to the plaintiff because 
of lapse of time. 
Plaintiff-lessor gave on lease an immovable property to the defendant 
for a fixed term expiring on 24.6.1984. Plaintiff sent a notice dt.26.9.1983 to 
the defendant to deliver the vacant possession ofleased property on 24.6.1984. 
E The defendant disputed the entitlement of plaintiff to demand possession. 
Thereafter, plaintiff filed suit for possession on 16.4.1984, twelve weeks before 
the date on which lease was to expire. The defendant filed written statement 
on 24.8.1984 pleading that the suit was premature and hence not maintainable. 
Single judge of the High Court decreed the suit. However, Division Bench 
~· 
F 
reversed the judgment holding that suit was premature as it was based on 
the cause of action, which w::is not ripe on the date of institution of the suit. 
Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A suit based on a plaint which discloses a cause of action is 
G not necessarily to be dismissed on trial solely because it ·was premature on 
the date of its institution if by the time the written statement came to be filed 
or by the time the Court is called upon to pass a decree, the plaintiff is found 
-
entitled to the relief prayed for in the plaint. (686-A-BJ 
H 
Bihari Chowdhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1984] 2 SCC 6,27; 
680 
t 
VITHALBHAI PVT. LTD. v. U.0.1. 
681 
(Vaddadi) Butchiraju and Ors. v. Doddi Seetharamayya and Ors., AIR (1926) A 
Madras 377; A. T. Raghava Chariar v. O.M Srinivasa Raghava Chariar, (1917) 
ILR 40 Mad. 308; (Mylavarapu) Rangayya Naidu v. Basana Simon and Ors., 
AIR (1926) Madras 594; Tarak Chandra Das and Anr. v. Anukul Chandra 
Mukherjee, AIR (1946) Calcutta 118; Sankara Pillai v. Mathunni lttiera, (1958) 
KL T 220; Kathringa v. Lonappan, (1969) KL T 334; Hameed v. lttoop, (1970) 
KLT 501; V.N. Sarin v. Ajit Kumar Poplai, AIR (1966) SC 432; Themmalapuram B 
Bus Transport, Pa/ghat v. Regional Transport Authority, Pa/ghat and Ors., (1967) 
KLT 122; Subbaraya Chetty v. Nachiar Ammal, (1918) VII LW 403; Zadba 
Sadasheo Balpande v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and Ors., (1964) Mh Ll 
559 and Gurdit Singh and Ors. v. Munsha Singh and Ors., (197711 SCC 791, 
referred to. 
2.1. No amount of waiver or consent can confer jurisdiction on a Court 
which it inherently lacks or where none exists. The filing of a suit when there 
is cause of action though premature does not raise a jurisdictional question. 
The claim may be well-merited and the Court does have jurisdiction to hear 
c 
the suit and grant the relief prayed for but for the fact that the plaintiff should D 
have waited a little more before entering the portals of the Court In such a 
case the question is one of discretion. In spite of the suit being _premature on 
the date of its institution the Court may still grant relief to the plaintiff if no 
manifest injustice or prejudice is caused to the party proceeded against. 
(689-B-DJ 
2.2. Where the right to sue has not matured on the date of the institution 
of the suit an objection in that regard must be promptly taken by the 
defendant. The Court may reject the plaint if it does not disclose the cause of 
action. It may dismiss the suit with liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit 
E 
on its maturity. The plaintiff may himself withdraw the suit at that stage and 
such withdrawal would not come in the way of the plaintiff in filing the suit F 
on its maturity. In either case, the plaintiff would not be prejudiced. On the 
other hand, if the defendant by his inaction amounting to acquiescence or 
waiver allows the suit to proceed ahead then he cannot be permitted to 
belatedly urge such a plea as that would cause hardship, may be irreparable 
prejudice, to the plaintiff because of lapse of time. I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.