Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

R.F.A No. 271 of 2011,O.S No. 93/2009 of Addl. Sub Court, Kottayam

Advocates

By Sri. Ciccu Mukhopadhya, Senior Advocate Advs., Sri. E.K Nandakumar, Sri. A.K Jayasankar Nambiar, Sri. K. John Mathai, Sri. P. Benny Thomas, Sri. P. Gopinath, Sri. Nithin George
By Sri. K. Ramakumar, Senior Advocate Advs., Smt. Smitha George, Sri. T. Ramprasad Unni

Judges

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
A.V Ramakrishna Pillai, JJ.

Acts

Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC.6. Paragraphs 9 and 10
Section 15(1) of the Limitation Act.
limitation.5. Order XIV Rule 2 CPC
provision in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2
Article 54 of the Limitation Act,
SECTION 15 LIMITATION ACT
1976 to Order XIV Rule 2
sub-rule (2) of that Rule
Sub-rule 1 of that rule
Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC.
sub-rule (2) of Rule 2
Rule 2 of Order XIV

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary: Appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance on limitation grounds

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. The trial court decided a preliminary issue that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit on that basis. The plaintiff (appellant) challenged the dismissal in this appeal. The appeal was heard by Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J., with senior counsel appearing for both parties.

Relevant procedural events mentioned in the pleadings include a writ petition (WPC No. 28846 of 2004) filed by the respondent and proceedings before the Directorate of Enforcement which allegedly affected the plaintiff's ability to purchase the property. The plaintiff filed the suit on 3.3.2009 after the High Court had quashed an order of the Directorate of Enforcement on 16.7.2008. The contract fixed a date for performance (10.9.1994), and the trial court applied Article 54 of the Limitation Act to hold the suit barred by limitation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court was correct in holding, as a preliminary issue, that the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.
Whether the question of limitation in this suit is a pure question of law (capable of disposal as a preliminary issue) or a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial on the merits, having regard to the contract terms and the conduct of the parties (including intervening litigation and alleged impediments to performance).
Whether Section 15 of the Limitation Act or Article 54 of the Limitation Act governs the plaintiff's claim to extend the period for instituting the suit.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The trial court's finding that the suit is barred by limitation is unsustainable in law and on facts; the court below erred in dismissing the suit simply because it was not filed within three years from the date stipulated for performance.
The sequence of events and the conduct of the parties—including the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court of Kerala and proceedings before the Enforcement Directorate—were not considered by the trial court and are relevant to limitation and readiness and willingness to perform.
Pleadings in the plaint disclose facts (including discussions between the parties, the writ petition, a lawyer's notice dated 20.8.2008, and the defendant's reply dated 8.9.2008) that require adjudication on evidence before a finding on limitation can be made.
Reliance was placed on Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity to argue that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and depends on the nature of the agreement and the conduct of the parties.
Reliance was placed on Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah v. Anton Elis Farel to contend that even where the date for performance is fixed under Article 54, the court must examine whether an extension was pleaded and established; and whether time was of the essence is a factual matter.
The court below ought not to have held the suit barred even if Section 15 did not assist the plaintiff, because the plaint pleads factual circumstances preventing a pure legal determination on limitation at the preliminary stage.

Respondent's Arguments

The impugned judgment should not be interfered with unless it is shown to be wrong in law or on facts; the trial court correctly held that Section 15 did not assist the plaintiff and that Article 54 (first limb) fixed the limitation period.
Reference was made to decisions (M.S.M Haneefa v. United Finance Corporation and Food Corporation Of India v. Mohammed Kunhi) to support the interpretation of Section 15(1) of the Limitation Act.
The respondent emphasized that limitation runs from the date fixed for performance (10.9.1994 to 10.9.2007) under Article 54 and that the suit filed on 3.3.2009 is barred; no equitable consideration could overcome the limitation plea.
The court below was entitled, when considering a preliminary issue of limitation, to consider only the plaint and decide the matter as an issue of law if it were purely legal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity [(2006) 5 SCC 340]	Establishes that a plea of limitation can be a mixed question of law and fact; whether a suit is barred depends on the nature of the agreement and the conduct of the parties.	The court relied on this precedent to support the conclusion that limitation may not be a pure question of law where conduct of parties and the manner of understanding the agreement are relevant, and therefore cannot be disposed of as a preliminary legal issue without trial.
Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah v. Anton Elis Farel [(2006) 3 SCC 634]	Holds that even where a date for performance is fixed (Article 54 first limb), the question of limitation may require examination of whether an extension was pleaded and established; limitation can be a mixed question.	The court applied this authority to emphasize that fixing a date for performance does not automatically render limitation a pure question of law if facts such as extension or conduct are in dispute.
Lufthansa German Airlines v. Vij Sales Corporation [(1998) 8 SCC 623]	Reiterates the undesirability of deciding a suit on a preliminary issue and states that normally all issues should be decided at trial; sub-rule (2) of Order XIV Rule 2 is an exception for pure questions of law.	The court invoked this precedent to support the proposition that preliminary disposal under Order XIV Rule 2(2) is permissible only for pure legal issues and to caution against piecemeal trial where facts remain to be adjudicated.
M.S.M Haneefa v. United Finance Corporation [2006 (1) KLT 416]	Cited in support of submissions concerning Section 15(1) of the Limitation Act (as part of respondent's reliance).	The decision was referenced by the respondent to buttress the interpretation that Section 15(1) does not assist the plaintiff; the court noted the citation in the respondent's submissions.
Food Corporation Of India v. Mohammed Kunhi [2009 (3) KHC 164(DB)]	Cited to support submissions on Section 15(1) of the Limitation Act.	The court recorded that this authority was relied upon by the respondent in support of the contention that Section 15 did not extend the limitation period in the facts of the case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by stating the statutory framework under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC. Sub-rule (1) requires that judgment be pronounced on all issues, while sub-rule (2) allows the court, in certain circumstances, to try first an issue of law only (notably jurisdiction or a statutory bar) if disposing the suit by that issue would avoid unnecessary trial.

The court emphasized that sub-rule (2) is an exception intended to avoid piecemeal trial and should be applied only where the issue is a pure question of law. It relied on Lufthansa German Airlines to reiterate the undesirability of deciding suits on preliminary issues unless those issues are purely legal.

The court considered the precedents of Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and Panchanan Dhara, which establish that limitation may be a mixed question of law and fact. Specifically, even when a date for performance is fixed (Article 54), the court must examine whether extensions were pleaded and proved and whether parties' conduct indicated that time was or was not treated as of the essence. The conduct of the parties during the period fixed for performance may render the limitation question factual.

The court analysed the plaint, particularly paragraphs 9 and 10, which aver:

There were several discussions during the pendency of the writ petition in which the plaintiff stated readiness and willingness to purchase on vacating the prohibitory order; the plaintiff remained ready and willing subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
After disposal of the writ petition, the defendant allegedly refused to proceed and demanded unconscionable amounts; the plaintiff issued a registered lawyer's notice dated 20.8.2008 calling upon the defendant to execute and register the sale deed; the defendant replied on 8.9.2008 claiming no impediment to transfer even during pendency of the writ petition, which the plaintiff contended was baseless due to the prohibitory order of 28.6.2004.

Given these pleaded facts, the court concluded that questions of fact as to the conduct of parties, the nature of the agreement, and how the parties understood and performed their reciprocal obligations were unavoidable. Consequently, the issue of limitation in this case could not be treated as a pure question of law suitable for disposal as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2). On that basis the court held that the trial court erred in deciding limitation as an issue of law alone and in dismissing the suit on that preliminary basis.

The court therefore vacated the impugned judgment and decree and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication of all issues on merits, untrammelled by the conclusions in the vacated judgment, except for the present appellate finding that limitation is not a pure question of law in this case.

The court also directed the parties to appear before the court below on 6.11.2013 and ordered refund of the court fee paid on this appeal in view of the remand.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the appellate court vacated the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court and remitted the suit for trial on all issues.

Implications and immediate consequences:

The matter is to be tried afresh on all issues, with the trial court free to decide the case on its merits (the appellate court's observation that the limitation issue is not a pure question of law in this case is binding for the purpose of trial procedure).
Parties were directed to mark appearance before the court below on 6.11.2013.
The appellate court ordered refund of the court fee paid on this appeal because of the remand.
No broader new legal principle or precedent was announced beyond the application and reinforcement of existing authorities: the judgment applies established law (notably the limits of Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC and the precedent that limitation can be a mixed question of law and fact) to the facts pleaded in this suit. The direct effect is the vacatur of the dismissal and remand for full trial; the court did not state that a new rule of law was being laid down.

This summary is strictly based on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

Taj Kerala Hotels And Resorts Ltd. v. Easytec India Pvt. Ltd.

Judgment

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property appeals against the dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation; that point having been decided as a preliminary issue.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

3. On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the finding of the court below that the suit is barred by limitation is not sustainable in law or on facts and that the court below had erroneously held that the suit is barred by limitation merely because the suit was not filed within the period of three years from the date stipulated for the purpose of the contract for sale. It was also argued that the sequence of events and the conduct of parties, including the writ petition that was pending before the High Court of Kerala and other relevant aspects have not been considered. The learned senior counsel made reference to the pleadings in the plaint and argued that the averments therein called for an adjudication on facts after affording the plaintiff the opportunity to adduce evidence. The pleadings in the plaint, according to the learned senior counsel, disclose such events as were required to be determined and considered for the purpose of deciding as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. He made reference to WPC. No. 28846 of 2004 filed by the respondent and argued that such conduct clearly demonstrated that the defendant respondent had itself pleaded before this Court about the requirement to complete the sale in terms of the contract for sale. It was argued that the proceedings then pending before the Enforcement Directorate had stood in the way of the plaintiff purchasing the property outright and the plaintiff had been always ready and willing to purchase the property. Reliance was placed on Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity [(2006) 5 SCC 340] to argue that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and that the question as to whether a suit for specific performance of contract will be barred by limitation or not, would not only depend upon the nature of the agreement, but also on the conduct of the parties and also as to how they understood the terms and conditions of the agreement. Reliance was also made to Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah v. Anton Elis Farel [(2006) 3 SCC 634] to argue that even if it is a case where the suit is governed by the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, that is to say, where the date is fixed for performance, it ought to have been further examined as to whether there was any case of extension pleaded and established. He also argued that the question whether time was of the essence of the contract for sale is also a matter that arose for determination, having regard to the facts of the case in hand. It was thus argued that the court below ought not to have held that the suit is barred by limitation even if it was a case where Section 15 of the Limitation Act did not come to the aid of the plaintiff and the plea in that regard in the plaint would have been erroneous in law.

4. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent is fundamentally that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted on any ground and interference in appeal would not be made unless the order of the trial court is wrong either in law or on facts. It was argued that the court below cannot be found fault with for having held that Section 15 does not come to the aid of the plaintiff and that the time for performance having been fixed, the period of limitation is three years from such date, going by Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Reference was made to the decisions of this Court in M.S.M Haneefa v. United Finance Corporation [2006 (1) KLT 416] and Food Corporation Of India v. Mohammed Kunhi [2009 (3) KHC 164(DB)] to buttress the submissions on Section 15(1) of the Limitation Act. The learned senior counsel further argued that the plaintiff had pointedly relied on Section 15 of the Limitation Act in the plaint to explain the institution of the suit after the period of three years from the date fixed in the contract for sale for its performance. That plea having been found against, the court below cannot be criticised for having dismissed the suit since at the point of time of examination of the matter while considering a preliminary issue as to limitation and bar to sue by operation of law, the court below was required to consider only the plaint and nothing more. Referring to the sequence of events from the date of sale, it was pointed out that it was after the period of expiry of the agreement that the plaintiff had approached seeking impleadment in the writ proceedings filed by the defendant before this Court and the suit was filed only on 3.3.2009 after the High Court had quashed the order of Directorate of Enforcement on 16.7.2008 It was argued that limitation runs from the date fixed for performance, i.e, 10.9.1994 to 10.9.2007 in terms of the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act and the suit filed on 3.3.2009 is clearly barred by limitation and that no equitable consideration can be permitted to be raised in connection with the plea of limitation.

5. Order XIV Rule 2 CPC requires that the court shall pronounce judgment on all issues. Sub-rule 1 of that rule specifically says so. However, the provision in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 provides that where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. Therefore, a plea as to bar of limitation can be considered as a preliminary issue. But, such determination and decision and disposal on that issue alone can be done only if it could be on an issue of law only. The intent and purpose of Rule 2 of Order XIV is to avoid piecemeal trial of the suit. Only where the suit can be disposed of by determination of a pure issue of law, the exercise permitted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 can be undertaken. In Lufthansa German Airlines v. Vij Sales Corporation [(1998) 8 SCC 623], the Apex Court reiterated the undesirability of deciding a suit on a preliminary issue and the insistence that normally all issues should be decided while disposing of the suit. The amendment made in 1976 to Order XIV Rule 2 was specifically referred to by Their Lordships to state that sub-rule (2) of that Rule is an exception where a suit can be disposed of on the question of law only. If the issue as to bar of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, that cannot be decided and ordered as a preliminary issue in terms of Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC. Following the precedents Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah (supra) and Panchanan Dhara (supra), it needs to be noted that even in a case where a particular time is fixed for performance of a contract for sale, there is the requirement to further look into, when there is a case of extension pleaded and established. Not only that, when the conduct of parties becomes relevant to determine whether the time was treated as of the essence of the contract or whether consensus arrived at in that regard at the formation of the contract had given way to time not being treated as of the essence of the contract with the passage of time, such matters cannot be determined, except by answering questions of facts which also intricately arise for decision and then, the question of limitation cannot but be treated as a mixed question of law and fact. Though Panchanan Dhara (supra) was a case where date for performance was not specifically fixed in the contract for sale, the law laid in that precedent to the effect that the question as to whether a suit for specific performance of contract will be barred by limitation or not would depend not only upon the nature of the agreement but also on the conduct of the parties and also as to how they understood the terms and conditions of the agreement, would also apply to cases where the conduct of parties during the course of the period fixed for performance of the contract may be relevant for decision on the issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. Even in such cases, the question of limitation cannot be answered as a pure question of law, to terminate the suit on a preliminary issue referable to bar of limitation, thus closing the litigation on the authority to try a preliminary issue of law as provided for under Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC.

6. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint in the suit from which this appeal arises, read as follows:

“9. Even during the pendency of the above writ petition, there had been several discussions between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein the plaintiff had made it clear that on disposal of the case or on vacating prohibitory order issued by the Enforcement Directorate, the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the property. The plaintiff has been always, subject to the result of the outcome of the writ petition, and even now ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. After the disposal of the Writ Petition, when the plaintiff called upon the defendant to perform its part of the contract, the defendant refused to proceed in terms with the agreement and was demanding unconscionable amounts for completing the sale transaction.

10. The plaintiff therefore issued a registered lawyers notice dated 20.8.2008, intimating the defendant about the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to purchase the property and calling upon the defendant to execute and register the sale deed on the consideration agreed upon between the parties. The defendant after receipt of the lawyers notice dated 20.8.2008 had sent a reply dated 8.9.2008 through Counsel stating that there was no impediment in transferring the land in favour of the plaintiff even during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The said contention is absolutely baseless, in view of the prohibitory order issued by the Directorate of Enforcement on 28.6.2004, which was under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court.”

7. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings, it cannot be held that this is a case where there was no requirement to adjudicate any question of fact regarding the conduct of parties, the nature of the agreement and how the parties understood and proceeded to perform their reciprocal obligations under the contract for sale. Therefore, we are of the view that this was not a case where the court below ought to have decided the issue as to bar of limitation of the suit as an issue of law only and therefore, as a preliminary issue. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be vacated and the case remitted for trial of all issues untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned judgment or herein, on the merits of the contentions, except to the extent this judgment holds that the issue of limitation in the case in hand is not an issue of law only.

In the result, the impugned decree and judgment are vacated and the suit is remitted to the court below, to be proceeded with and decided upon afresh on all issues. The parties are directed to mark appearance before the court below on 6.11.2013 In view of this order of remand, refund of court fee paid on this appeal is hereby ordered.

Taj Kerala Hotels And Resorts Ltd. v. Easytec India Pvt. Ltd.

Case Summary: Appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance on limitation grounds

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Taj Kerala Hotels And Resorts Ltd. v. Easytec India Pvt. Ltd.

Comments