Scribd
Upload
5 views2 pages

Research Note On SLP (Civil) 36 of 2021

The document discusses three legal cases where the courts addressed issues of limitation and procedural fairness. In each case, the Supreme Court found that lower courts either dismissed suits on limitation grounds without proper issues being framed or granted relief based on unpleaded claims, violating civil procedure principles. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper pleading and evidence in ensuring fair opportunities for plaintiffs in legal proceedings.

Uploaded by

Luddu Minh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views2 pages

Research Note On SLP (Civil) 36 of 2021

The document discusses three legal cases where the courts addressed issues of limitation and procedural fairness. In each case, the Supreme Court found that lower courts either dismissed suits on limitation grounds without proper issues being framed or granted relief based on unpleaded claims, violating civil procedure principles. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper pleading and evidence in ensuring fair opportunities for plaintiffs in legal proceedings.

Uploaded by

Luddu Minh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Note by Rishi A.

Kumar (Intern)

Brief note on “Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit
on limitation grounds without framing specific issues or points,
depriving the plaintiffs of a fair opportunity to address the issue ?”

Girja Kumar and Ors. v. State of H.P., (2007) 14 SCC 90

The plaintiffs filed a suit in 1989 claiming title to land based on adverse
possession, having allegedly been in possession for over 40 years. The
trial court and lower appellate court ruled in their favor, but the High Court
dismissed the suit, holding it was barred by limitation due to an alleged
1970 ejectment order under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which the
plaintiffs claimed was never communicated to them. The Supreme Court
set aside the High Court's decision, noting that the plea of limitation was
not raised in the pleadings, no issue was framed, and no evidence of the
1970 order was produced. The Court remanded the case to the High Court
to decide the issue of adverse possession afresh, emphasizing that the
High Court had not addressed the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession
and that the dismissal on limitation grounds was unjustified due to the
lack of proper pleading and evidence.

Relavant Paras: 2, 3, 7 & 8

State of H.P. v. Chandervir Singh Negi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 190

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit seeking compensation and


acquisition proceedings for land used to construct a road in 1987, claiming
damage to fruit-bearing trees. The trial court and first appellate court
dismissed the suit, holding it was barred by limitation under Articles 58
and 72 of the Limitation Act, as the cause of action arose in 1987, and the
plaintiff raised no grievance until 2002. The High Court, however, allowed
the second appeal without addressing the limitation issue, quashing the
lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's
decision, holding that the suit was indeed time-barred, as the road
construction and alleged damage occurred in 1987, and the plaintiff's
delay until 2003 was unjustified. The trial court's dismissal of the suit was
restored.

Relavant Paras: 2, 3, 9 & 11

Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr. [2008] 14 S.C.R. 621

The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership and possession of a strip of


land, alleging encroachment by the defendant. The trial court partially
decreed the suit, but the first appellate court dismissed it, holding that the
plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and that the land was used with the
permission of the original owner. The High Court, in a second appeal,
granted relief based on an easementary right of passage, despite no such
plea or issue being framed in the trial. The Supreme Court held that the
High Court erred in granting relief on an easementary right, as it was not
pleaded, no issue was framed, and the defendant had no opportunity to
Note by Rishi A. Kumar (Intern)

contest it. The Court emphasized that a decree cannot be based on a case
not pleaded or issues not framed, as it violates fundamental principles of
civil procedure. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the first
appellate court's decision was restored.

Relavant Paras: 6, 10, 11, 12 & 17

You might also like