Ajay Gupta v. Raju Alias Rajendra Singh Yadav ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff’s Recovery Suit No. 1 of 2011 was required to be instituted on or before 31-12-2010, the last working day before the court’s winter vacation. Instead, it was filed on 03-01-2011. The defendant invoked Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint as time-barred. The trial court dismissed that application, holding that 01-01-2011—a Saturday designated “non-working” for judges—effectively extended limitation because failure to file on that day was a bona fide mistake. The High Court (Civil Revision No. 6 of 2012) affirmed the trial court. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which delivered the present opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extends the period for filing a suit when the registry is open but the day is treated as “non-working” for judges.

Whether any equitable or bona fide mistake can justify extension of limitation for filing a suit beyond the period prescribed when Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to suits.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court applied first principles of limitation law as follows:

Section 4 of the Limitation Act permits filing on the day the court reopens only if the prescribed period expires “when the court is closed.” The Explanation deems the court closed only if it remains closed during any part of its normal working hours.

It was undisputed that on 01-01-2011 the court registry remained open; only regular hearings were not listed. Therefore, the court was not “closed” within the meaning of Section 4.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows extension for sufficient cause, applies exclusively to appeals and applications, not to suits. Consequently, neither court nor tribunal could enlarge the limitation period for the present suit.

The trial court’s reliance on a “bona fide mistake” and the High Court’s affirmation were inconsistent with the statutory scheme, as equitable considerations cannot override explicit legislative limits on extending time for suits.

Because the suit was filed after the limitation period expired and no statutory provision permitted extension, the plaint was liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of both the trial court and the High Court, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and dismissed Recovery Suit No. 1 of 2011.

Implications: The decision reiterates that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies only when the court, including its registry, is actually closed, and that Section 5 cannot be invoked for suits. Non-working Saturdays for judges, when the registry functions, do not extend limitation. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to statutory limitation periods without equitable enlargement in the context of suits, but it sets no new precedent beyond affirming settled principles.

Ajay Gupta v. Raju Alias Rajendra Singh Yadav .

Kurian Joseph, J.— Leave granted. The impugned judgment Civil Revision No. 6 of 2012 on limitation to file a suit gives an interesting reading on reasoning:

“The learned trial court has vide the impugned order, disposed of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the defendant on the ground that 1-1-2011 was non-working Saturday, therefore the suit was filed on 3-1-2011 is within limitation. Although there is no bar for filing of suit on non-working Saturday but if the suit is not filed on non-working Saturday under the assumption that it is non-working Saturday then the mistake of non-filing is a bona fide mistake, so the mistake is taken as bona fide mistake.”

2. It is not in dispute that the last date for filing the suit was 31-12-2010, the last day of winter vacation for court. 1-1-2011 was a Saturday, and even according to the High Court, it is non-working Saturday for the Judges for enabling them to write judgments and regular hearing of cases is not heard on a non-working Saturday. Obviously, it was not a holiday for the Registry and there is no question of any confusion, though such confusion also cannot save limitation to file a suit.

3. Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dealing with “Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed”, no doubt, applies to suits as well, and in case the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.

4. The Explanation under Section 4 of the Act also makes it clear that:

“Explanation.—A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.”

5. There is no case for anybody that even for part of the day, the Registry was closed. But Section 5 of the Act which deals with “Extension of prescribed period in certain cases”, applies only to appeals or applications and not to suits. Therefore, no court or tribunal can extend the period of limitation for filing a suit. Even if any cause, beyond the control of the plaintiff is shown also, the only extension is what is permitted under Section 4 of the Act, the period coming under court holiday.

6. Thus, both the trial court and the High Court have gravely gone wrong on the first principles on the law of limitation. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. Recovery Suit No. 1 of 2011 on the file of the ADJ, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh is dismissed.

7. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 2016, decided on July 5, 2016

Ajay Gupta v. Raju Alias Rajendra Singh Yadav .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ajay Gupta v. Raju Alias Rajendra Singh Yadav .

Comments