Time-Barred Suit Must Be Dismissed Even If Limitation Plea Isn’t Raised as Defence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that a suit barred by the statute of limitations must be dismissed by the court, even if the defense of limitation is not raised by the parties involved.
In a decision overturning the findings of the High Court’s Division Bench, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta relied on the precedent set in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 613. The Court emphasized that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, courts are mandated to dismiss any suit filed after the prescribed limitation period, regardless of whether the defense has been asserted.
Case Background
The Supreme Court made this observation in a case involving a partner who filed for a rendition of accounts of a partnership firm beyond the allowable period of limitation. According to Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, a partnership firm is automatically dissolved upon the death of a partner. The Court noted that any suit for the rendition of an account must be filed within three years from the date of the partner’s death. Filing beyond this period renders the suit non-maintainable due to the statutory bar under the Limitation Act.
Court’s Reasoning
“The period of limitation for filing a suit for rendition of account is three years from the date of dissolution. In the present case, the firm dissolved in 1984 due to the death of Shri M. Balraj Reddy (deceased partner), and thus, the suit could only have been instituted within a period of three years from that event. Indisputably, the suit came to be filed in 1996 and was clearly time-barred,” Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote in the judgment.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, which had dismissed the suit as time-barred.
Legal Representation
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sridhar Potaraju and Advocate-on-Record Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei. The respondents were represented by Advocate-on-Record Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Advocate Mr. Vadlamani Seshagiri, and Advocate-on-Record Mrs. Bela Maheshwari.
Case Title: S. Shivraj Reddy (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives and Another vs. S. Raghuraj Reddy and Others
For a detailed reading of the judgment, [click here to read/download the judgment].
Related Reading
- Is Revision Under S.397 CrPC Maintainable Against Default Bail Order? Supreme Court To Consider
- Maharashtra Stamp Act: Refund Of Stamp Duty Can’t Be Denied On Ground That Application Was Made Before Execution Of Cancellation Deed: Supreme Court
- High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act: Supreme Court
