In Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13459 of 2024], the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s decision and restored the trial court’s order rejecting a civil suit as barred by limitation. The Court reaffirmed that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period begins when the cause of action first arises, not from when the plaintiff claims to have obtained ‘full knowledge’ of the disputed facts.
Case Background:
The original suit was instituted by Hitesh P. Sanghvi, son of the deceased Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, against his three sisters—Smt. Harshaben Vijay Mehta, Smt. Nikhila Divyang Mehta, and Smt. Ami Rajesh Parikh—and a nephew, seeking a declaration that the Will dated 04.02.2014 and Codicil dated 20.09.2014 executed by his father were null and void. The plaintiff also prayed for consequential reliefs including a permanent injunction against transactions based on the said Will and Codicil.
According to the plaint, the testator died on 21.10.2014, and the plaintiff came to know of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014. The suit was filed on 21.11.2017.
Arguments Before the Trial Court:
Defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the plaint disclosed that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil in November 2014, and thus the suit filed beyond the three-year limitation period was ex-facie barred.
The plaintiff contended that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, and he should be allowed to adduce evidence on the issue.
Trial Court’s Finding:
The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, held that the plaintiff’s own pleadings revealed that the cause of action arose on or before the first week of November 2014, and therefore, the suit filed on 21.11.2017 was beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The plaint was accordingly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
High Court’s Decision:
The Gujarat High Court reversed the trial court’s order on 08.02.2024, holding that the issue of limitation required evidence and could not be decided at the threshold. It also observed that the plaint contained multiple prayers, and rejection on limitation grounds for one relief could not invalidate the entire suit.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti disagreed with the High Court. Referring to Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the Court emphasized that limitation for a declaration suit runs from “when the right to sue first accrues.”
The Court cited the plaintiff’s own averments in para 3(o), para 4, and para 6 of the plaint, which showed that the cause of action arose at the latest in the first week of November 2014. Thus, the three-year limitation expired by the first week of November 2017, and the suit filed on 21.11.2017 was clearly time-barred.
The Court clarified:
“It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between ‘knowledge’ and ‘full knowledge’. First of all, the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action.”
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Court held that all reliefs sought were consequential to the primary relief of declaration. Hence, once the declaratory relief was barred by limitation, the suit in its entirety could not be sustained.
Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 08.02.2024, and restored the trial court’s order dated 23.10.2018 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by limitation.
Citation:
Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13459 of 2024)
