Sudesh Chhikara vs Baljeet Singh

Valmiki J. Mehta, J

CM No. 5284/2018 (for restoration)

For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated 15.12.2017 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA No. 1034/2017

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of

the trial court dated 9.8.2017 by which the trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation.

The suit plaint was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.40 lacs against the respondent/defendant, who is the father-in-law of the

appellant/plaintiff. The suit for recovery has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff pleading that she was the owner of a property measuring 50 sq. yards

bearing no. B-51/B, part of Khasra No. 9/12, situated in the area of village Matiala Delhi and this property was owned by the appellant/plaintiff as it

was purchased in her name by her late husband being the son of the respondent/defendant. The husband of the appellant/plaintiff expired on

19.10.2000 and thereafter the suit property was sold on 24.2.2011 by the appellant/plaintiff on being pressurized by the respondent/defendant, however

the entire sale consideration was not received by the appellant/plaintiff but by the respondent/defendant and to recover which the subject suit was

filed.

Respondent/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the husband of the appellant/plaintiff was not the owner of the subject property and the

subject property was purchased out of the funds of the respondent/defendant. In any case the entire sale consideration for the property bearing no.B-

51/B, has been received by the appellant/plaintiff and not by the respondent/defendant. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed. It was also

contended that for the sake of arguments even if the appellant/plaintiff had to file a suit then appellant/plaintiff had to file a suit within three years from

24.2.2011 when the property was sold but the subject suit was filed in November 2016 when limitation expired on 24.2.2014 and hence the suit was

hence prayed to be dismissed as time-barred.

Trial court has rejected the plaint by holding that Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies and not Article 113 of the Limitation Act inasmuch

as Article 24 of the Limitation Act specifically applies to facts when money is received by the respondent/defendant for use of the appellant/plaintiff.

Even for the sake of arguments and even assuming though the appellant/plaintiff was very much a party to the sale transaction of the property bearing

no. B-51/B, but that allegedly she did not receive the consideration and that the respondent/defendant had received the consideration, which of course

though doubtful, but is a disputed question of fact, yet the admitted position is that the property bearing no.B-51/B was sold on 24.2.2011, and the suit

was filed in November 2016 clearly makes the suit plaint barred by time. Trial court has rightly held that in such facts it is Article 24 of the Limitation

Act which applies and not Article 113 of the Limitation Act and which a general Article.

I may also note that respondent/defendant had contended that many litigations have been initiated by the appellant/plaintiff against the

respondent/defendant and the subject suit was one of the litigations, however, this Court does not have to go in any further aspects inasmuch as the

suit plaint has been rejected as being barred by limitation applying Article 24 of the Limitation Act and which did apply.

There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.