Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Oct 14,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Tejinder Singh challenging the order of the Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, which had refused to reject a civil suit on the ground of limitation. Justice Sandeep Sharma, while upholding the lower court’s decision, held that the issue of limitation in the present case is a mixed question of fact and law that requires adjudication during trial, and therefore, the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The case arises from a long-standing family property dispute over the Knollswood estate in Shimla East. The controversy began with a 1997 suit filed by Pravir Singh against his father Govinder Singh and others, seeking declaration and partition of family property. A second suit on similar grounds was filed in 2003 by Govinder Singh, which was stayed and later closed following directions of the Supreme Court in 2024. Subsequently, the apex court transposed Govinder Singh as the plaintiff in the earlier 1997 suit to balance equities between the parties.
In his plea, Tejinder Singh had contended that since the 2003 suit filed by Govinder Singh was time-barred, the transposed plaintiff could not continue the earlier suit. He argued that the court below failed to appreciate the limitation bar and erred in not rejecting the plaint. However, the High Court disagreed, observing that “once the subsequent suit stands closed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order, the question of limitation framed therein is of no relevance for the adjudication of the revived suit.”
Justice Sandeep Sharma emphasised that, “only the statements in the plaint should be considered while deciding whether the plaint is barred by limitation,” and that “if there is even a possibility that the issue of limitation requires evidence or factual determination, the plaint should not be rejected summarily.” The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s judgments in Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties (2020) and P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan (2025), reiterating that limitation often involves mixed questions of law and fact.
Rejecting the petitioner’s contention, the Bench further clarified that transposition of Govinder Singh as plaintiff under Section 21(2) of the Limitation Act would relate back to the filing date of the original suit of 1997, thereby preserving the suit’s validity. “The suit cannot be dismissed on the premise that an earlier suit filed by Govinder Singh in 2003 was barred by limitation,” the Court held.
Concluding that there was no illegality in the lower court’s approach, the High Court dismissed Tejinder Singh’s petition as devoid of merit and directed that the main suit, revived under the Supreme Court’s order, should proceed from the stage at which it was earlier closed.
About the Author
