The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan has ruled that a civil suit can be dismissed as time-barred even if no specific issue on limitation was framed by the trial court. The Court held that it is the duty of civil courts under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to examine limitation regardless of whether the parties raise it as a defense, and regardless of whether a separate issue has been framed. The ruling came while allowing an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment that had remanded the matter for fresh trial on limitation grounds.
Case Background
The litigation arose out of a 1965 suit (O.S. No. 851 of 1965) filed for maintenance by the wife and daughter of Samiappan, whose family was part of a joint Hindu family. The decree led to the auction of the ‘A’ schedule property in execution proceedings. Over time, the auctioned property was sold multiple times, eventually reaching the present appellants.
In 1982, nearly 17 years after the 1965 decree and sale, Respondents No. 1 to 3—the wife and daughters of Dasappa Gowdar (Samiappan’s brother)—filed O.S. No. 257 of 1982 seeking to set aside the original decree, claim partition in the properties, and obtain a permanent injunction.
The trial court dismissed the suit both on merits and on limitation grounds, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to act within the three-year period stipulated under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The first appellate court affirmed this finding, noting that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the previous proceedings and had unduly delayed approaching the court.
High Court’s Remand and Supreme Court’s Intervention
On second appeal, the Madras High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the trial court for a fresh trial, directing the framing of an additional issue on limitation. The High Court found that neither the trial court nor the appellate court had framed an issue on limitation, and thus remand was warranted.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that failure to frame a specific issue on limitation did not vitiate the judgment when the matter was fully considered and decided by both the trial and first appellate courts. It observed:
“In the present case, the trial Court though had not framed a specific issue on ‘limitation’, the same could very well fall under the broader issue. The failure of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court to formulate a separate issue… is not fatal to the judgment rendered by them and has not caused any prejudice to the parties.”
The Court further noted that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, courts are obligated to dismiss a suit if it is ex facie time-barred, even if no party raises the objection:
“If a suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation, a court has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of limitation.”
Key Observations and Ruling
Limitation can be decided even without a specifically framed issue if the pleadings and evidence justify it.
- Procedural defects such as failure to frame a particular issue do not automatically warrant remand unless it results in serious prejudice.
- The High Court erred in remanding the case solely to frame an issue on limitation, especially when full evidence was available and considered.
- The appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit reappreciation of facts without justification.
The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court, both of which had dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. It set aside the High Court’s decision to remand the case, stating that such a remand after decades would unnecessarily prolong the litigation.
“The High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial solely with respect to the issue of limitation… the Courts below have rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief.”
Case Details:
Case Title:R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through LRs and Another vs Rajmani and Others
Case No. Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2025
