Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Plaintiff: Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa
  • For the Defendant no. 3: Mr. Sudhir Nagar
Judges
  • V.K Jain, J.
Acts
  • V.K JAIN, J.IA No. 20093/2011 (u/Order VII Rule 11 CPC)1.
  • application.4. Article 50 to 58 of the Limitation Act
  • accrues.5. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1965
  • Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure
  • Societies Registration Act, 1880.
  • Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
  • Article 120 of 1905 Act
  • Article 58 of 1963 Act,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Plaintiff: Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa
  • For the Defendant no. 3: Mr. Sudhir Nagar
Judges
  • V.K Jain, J.
Acts
  • V.K JAIN, J.IA No. 20093/2011 (u/Order VII Rule 11 CPC)1.
  • application.4. Article 50 to 58 of the Limitation Act
  • accrues.5. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1965
  • Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure
  • Societies Registration Act, 1880.
  • Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
  • Article 120 of 1905 Act
  • Article 58 of 1963 Act,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — V.K. Jain, J. (IA No. 20093/2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a suit for declaration and injunction brought by a body which claims to be the true and authentic national federation for the sport of "Throw Ball" (the plaintiff). The plaintiff alleges it was formed in 1977 and registered at Jind, Haryana (Registration No. 113/82-83 dated 5.5.1982) under the Societies Registration Act, 1880. The plaint states that Mr. T. Ramanna, who was appointed Honorary Secretary General in a plaintiff meeting held on 11.8.1989, got a separate society (defendant no. 3) registered with the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore (Registration No. 38/89-90 dated 13.4.1989).

The plaintiff alleges that it had obtained recognition from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (letter dated 11.8.1992), but that Mr. T. Ramanna colluded with officers in the Ministry to substitute himself as Secretary of "Throw Ball Federation of India" and to substitute the plaintiff's registration certificate with that of defendant no. 3. The plaintiff claims the Ministry began corresponding with Mr. Ramanna and that certain officials assisted him in obtaining recognition.

The plaintiff seeks (a) a declaration that it is the true apex federation and that defendant no. 3 is a sham; (b) a mandatory injunction directing the Ministry (defendant no. 2) to recognize the plaintiff as the true federation; and (c) a prohibitory injunction restraining defendant no. 3 from using the name "Throw Ball Federation of India" or organizing events or seeking government grants.

Procedurally, defendant no. 3 filed IA No. 20093/2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The court considered the IA and the plaint together and rejected the plaint.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, having regard only to the averments in the plaint and the documents filed therewith.
  2. Whether the suit for declaration and injunction is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act (three-year period for declaration), i.e., when the right to sue first accrued.
  3. Whether the reliefs claimed (mandatory and prohibitory injunctions) are time-barred based on the dates when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the alleged recognition of defendant no. 3 and on prior litigation regarding similar reliefs (Suit No. 292/1989).

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Allegations (as averred in the plaint and in documents filed with it)

  • The plaintiff is the original and authentic Throw Ball Federation in India (formed 1977; registered 5.5.1982 under Societies Registration Act, 1880).
  • Mr. T. Ramanna, appointed Honorary Secretary General by the plaintiff on 11.8.1989, caused defendant no. 3 to be registered (13.4.1989) and, with the collusion of Ministry officials, substituted himself as Secretary and got defendant no. 3 recognized by the Government in place of the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff received recognition from the Ministry on 11.8.1992, but later discovered that defendant no. 3 had been recognized; the plaintiff lodged protests and sought correction of the Government records (documents dated 11.01.2003 and 05.09.2005 are filed with the plaint and set out these protests).
  • The plaintiff seeks declaration and injunctions to prevent defendant no. 3 from acting as the national federation and to compel the Ministry to recognize the plaintiff as the true federation.

Defendant No. 3's Ground (as reflected in the IA)

  • By way of IA No. 20093/2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, defendant no. 3 seeks rejection of the plaint principally on the ground that the suit is clearly barred by limitation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, [2011 (9) SCC 126] Interpreting Article 58 of the Limitation Act (1963 Act) — that the period of limitation for a declaration runs for three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues; successive violations do not create fresh causes of action. The court relied on the principle that the limitation period under Article 58 begins when the right to sue first accrues and that recurring acts do not restart the limitation clock; applying this, the court concluded the plaintiff's right to sue accrued prior to 11.01.2003 and the suit filed on 23.03.2010 was time-barred.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in the following analytical steps (limited to the averments and documents on record, as required when deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC):

  1. Threshold principle for Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The court reiterated the settled law that, when considering rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, it can look only to the averments in the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff; it cannot look to the defendant's written statement or documents, nor examine the truthfulness of averments at this stage.
  2. Applicable limitation provision: The court identified Articles 50–58 of the Limitation Act as relevant to declaration suits, noting that Article 58 prescribes a three-year limitation period for a declaration suit, starting from when the right to sue first accrues. The court observed that Article 56 and 57 (pertaining to specific declarations) were not applicable to this case.
  3. Guiding precedent: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Khatri Hotels (2011), which explained that Article 58 (of the 1963 Act) represents a deliberate legislative departure from earlier law (Article 120 of the 1905 Act) and held that the period begins when the right to sue first accrues; repeated or successive violations do not give rise to fresh causes of action resetting limitation.
  4. Application to facts based on plaint documents: The court examined documents filed with the plaint—specifically letters dated 11.01.2003 (to the Executive Director (Dean), Sports Authority of India) and 05.09.2005 (to the Sports Secretary, Ministry of Youth Welfare and Sports). Those documents contain explicit statements by the plaintiff asserting knowledge that "Mr. T. Ramanna ... established himself as Secretary of TFI in the ministry" and that the plaintiff had "lodged a protest in the Ministry." The court treated these documents as showing the plaintiff's actual knowledge of defendant no. 3's recognition prior to 11.01.2003.
  5. Determination of accrual date and limitation bar: Because the plaint and its annexed documents demonstrate that the plaintiff knew of the recognition of defendant no. 3 prior to 11.01.2003, the court held the right to sue for declaration accrued prior to that date. The suit was filed on 23.03.2010—well beyond three years from accrual—so it was time-barred under Article 58.
  6. Analysis of injunction claims: For the mandatory injunction (directing the Ministry to recognize the plaintiff), the court held the right to sue arose when the plaintiff learned of the Government's recognition of defendant no. 3; that knowledge is recorded in the plaint documents and therefore this claim is also time-barred. For the prohibitory injunction against defendant no. 3, the court noted the plaintiff itself had earlier filed Suit No. 292/1989 for permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 3 from organizing tournaments in the federation's name; consequently, the right to sue for that relief had accrued prior to 1989 and is also barred by limitation.
  7. Conclusion following the limitation analysis: On the basis of the plaint averments and annexed documents, and applying the legal principles on accrual and limitation, the court concluded the plaint is barred by limitation and must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The plaint is rejected and the suit as well as IA No. 20093/2011 stand disposed of.

Immediate implications and consequences:

  • The plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction has been dismissed at the threshold by rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation, based on the documents and averments on record.
  • The court ordered that there shall be no orders as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
  • The decision operates as a dismissal of the present civil proceedings but does not purport to lay down any new substantive precedent beyond applying the settled law on accrual and limitation (including the Supreme Court's interpretation in Khatri Hotels). The ruling is confined to the facts and documents before this court in the Order VII Rule 11 CPC context.

Note: This summary is drawn exclusively from the text of the provided opinion and does not add facts or inferences beyond that material.

Show full summary ...

    Throw Ball Federation Of India v. Uoi

    V.K JAIN, J.

    IA No. 20093/2011 (u/Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

    1. This is a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff claims to be the true and authentic sports federation formed in the year 1977 for promoting sports of “Throw Ball’ in the country. The plaintiff was registered at Jind, Haryana, vide registration number 113/82-83 dated 5.5.1982 under Societies Registration Act, 1880. It is alleged in the plaint that Mr. T. Ramanna, who was appointed as Honorary Secretary General in the meeting of the plaintiff held on 11.8.1989, till the next general elections, got defendant no. 3, Society registered with Registrar of Societies, Bangalore, vide registration number 38/89-90 dated 13.4.1989 It is further alleged that the plaintiff had received due recognition from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, vide its letter dated 11.8.1992 However, Mr. T. Ramanna in collusion with the officers in the Ministry, was able to substitute his name as Secretary of “Throw Ball Federation of India” and also substitute the plaintiff federation's registration certificate bearing number 113/82-83 with registration certificate of defendant no. 3 bearing number 38/89-90. The Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Department of Youth and Sports Affairs started corresponding with Mr. T. Ramanna and some officials of the Ministry helped him in getting recognized as Secretary of ‘Throw Ball Federation of India’. The following reliefs have been claimed in the present suit:

    “a. To make a decree of declaration that the Plaintiff Federation is the true authentic apex ‘Throw Ball Federation’ and the Defendant no. 3 is a sham organization.

    b. To make a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff Federation and against the Defendants no. 1 and No. 2, directing Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Defendant no. 2) to recognize the Plaintiff Federation as the true authentic ‘Throw Ball Federation’.

    c. To make a decree of prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff Federation and against the Defendant no. 3 Federation restraining Defendant no. 3 Federation from using the name ‘Throw Ball Federation of India’ and organizing sports events, tournaments, tours, seeking government grants or for whatsoever purpose maybe.”

    2. IA No. 20093/2011 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant no. 3 for rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the suit is clearly barred by limitation.

    3. It is settled proposition of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, the Court can take into consideration only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. Neither the defence taken in the written statement nor the documents filed by the defendant can be looked into at this stage. It is also a settled proposition of law that the truthfulness or otherwise of the averments cannot be examined while considering such an application.

    4. Article 50 to 58 of the Limitation Act prescribe the period of limitation for the suits relating to declaration. Article 56 and 57 pertains to specific declaration and do not apply to the case before this Court. Article 58, which applies to the relief of declaration claimed in the suit prescribes the period of limitation of three years starting from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

    5. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Supreme court in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2011 (9) SCC 126]. The Apex Court in that case, noted that while enacting Article 58 of 1963 Act, the legislature designedly had made a departure from the language of Article 120 of 1905 Act which provided the limitation of six years from the date when the right to sue accrues. The Apex Court held that if a suit is based on legal cause of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues and that successive violation of the right will not give rise to a fresh cause of action and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation, counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

    6. The plaintiff's own case is that defendant no. 3 society was registered with Registrar of Societies of Bangalore on 13.4.1989 The grievance of the plaintiff in nutshell is that the Government of India has discarded the recognition granted to it and recognized defendant no. 3 ‘Throw Ball Federation of India’. The plaint does not disclose as to when the plaintiff came to know of recognition of defendant no. 3 by the Government of India. However, the documents filed with the plaint clearly show that the plaintiff had come to know, prior to 11.01.2003, that Mr. T. Ramanna had been able to get defendant no. 3 recognized from Government of India. Vide letter dated 11.01.2003 sent to Executive Director (Dean), Sports Authority of India, which is a document filed with the plaint, the plaintiff, inter alia, stated as under:

    “23. In the meantime, Mr. T. Ramanna using ambiguous means established himself as Secretary of TFI in the ministry.

    24. After getting the news we lodged a protest in the Ministry of Sports. Kindly do justice by correcting the address of our Throwball Federation of India, as recognized by Indian Olympic Association. The same has to be in the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Youth Affairs & Sports Authority, headed by Mr. Bala Bachan as President of TFI and Mr. Kamal Goswami Hony. Secretary General of TFI, 832/1st Mahaveer Nagar, Kota-324005, Rajasthan.

    Kindly do justice by correcting the address of our Throwball Federation of India, as recognized by Indian Olympic Association. The same has to be in the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Deptt. of Youth Affairs & Sports Authority, headed by Mr Bala Bachan as President of TFI and Mr Kamal Goswami Hony. Secretary General of TFI, 832/1 Mahaveer Nagar, Kota-324005, Rajasthan.”

    7. Vide letter dated 5.9.2005 written to the Sports Secretary, Ministry of Youth Welfare and Sports, Government of India, which again is a document filed with the plaint, the plaintiff, inter alia, stated as under:

    “5. By preparing falls paper and documents, Mr. Ramanna declared himself as Secretary of Throwball Federation of India.

    28. In the meantime, Mr. T. Ramanna using ambiguous means established himself as Secretary of TFI in the Ministry.

    29. After getting the news we lodged a protest in the Ministry of Sports.

    Kindly do justice by correcting the address of our Throwball Federation of India, as recognized by Indian Olympic Association. The same has to be in the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Deptt. of Youth Affairs & Sports Authority, headed by Mr Bala Bachan as President of TFI and Mr Kamal Goswami Hony. Secretary General of TFI, 832/1 Mahaveer Nagar, Kota-324005, Rajasthan.”

    8. Since the above document clearly disclose knowledge of the plaintiff with respect to the recognition of defendant no. 3 by Government of India, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, the right to sue, the declaration claimed by the plaintiff had, for the first time, accrued sometime prior to 11.01.2003 The suit having been filed on 23.3.2010 is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation.

    9. As regards the relief of mandatory injunction, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff when it came to know that the Government of India had recognized defendant no. 3 as ‘Throw Ball Federation of India’, in place of the plaintiff society. As regards relief of prohibitory injunction, restraining defendant no. 2 from using ‘Throw Ball Federation of India and organizing the sports events, tournaments etc, it is the plaintiff's own case in the plaint that on discovering unscrupulous activities of Mr. T. Ramanna, it had filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Sub Judge, First Class being Suit No. 292/1989 seeking permanently restraining the defendant no. 3 from organizing any tournament in India in the name of ‘Throw Ball Federation of India. Therefore, the right to sue, to claim this relief had accrued to the plaintiff prior to the filing of the civil suit in the year 1989. This relief, as claimed by the plaintiff, therefore, is barred by limitation.

    10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the plaint is rejected. The suit as well as the IA stand disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Throw Ball Federation Of India v. Uoi
    (Aug 13, 2012)