Second Suit On Same Cause Of Action Must Be Filed Within 3 Years Of Rejection Of Earlier Plaint : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent suit on the same cause of action would be barred by limitation if filed beyond three years after the rejection of an earlier plaint.
The Court rejected the argument that Order VII Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) justifies filing a fresh suit after the rejection of the earlier plaint. Instead, the Court said the subsequent suit would be barred by Limitation if filed beyond the period of three years after the rejection of an earlier suit.
It added that the subsequent suit would be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) being barred under limitation law because Rule 13 does not override the law of limitation i.e., the new suit must still comply with the limitation period under the Limitation Act.
The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing the appeal filed against the Madras High Court decision which affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing the Appellant's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the Respondent's subsequent suit filed after nine years of the rejection of the earlier plaint.
The Appellant contended that both the Court's erred in dismissing the Appellant's application for the rejection of the subsequent suit on the grounds of limitation.
Per contra, the Respondent took the defence of Order VII Rule 13 CPC to contend that rejection of the earlier plaint does not bar re-filing.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Nagarathna J. emphasized that the subsequent suit has to be filed within a limitation period of three years starting from the date of rejection of the earlier plaint, and the Respondent cannot
The Court observed that the Respondent cannot rely on Rule 13 of Order VII, as the provisions of the CPC do not override the Limitation Act. While filing a subsequent suit after the rejection of an earlier plaint is not prohibited, such a suit is maintainable only if filed within the stipulated three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act (time commences to run when the right to sue accrues).
“it is observed that the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.04.1991 in the year 1993 itself. The plaint in the said suit was rejected on 12.01.1998. The plaintiff could have filed the second suit on or before 12.01.2001 as it got right to file the suit on 12.01.1998 on the rejection of the plaint in the earlier suit filed by it. This is on the basis of Order VII Rule 13 of the Code. However, the limitation period expired in January, 2001 itself and the second suit was filed belatedly in the year 2007. The cause of action by then faded and paled into oblivion. The right to sue stood extinguished. The suit was barred in law as being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as per Article 113 to the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Hence the second suit is barred under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.”, the court observed.
“We therefore have no hesitation in rejecting the plaint in O.S No.49/2007 filed by the respondent herein even in the absence of any evidence being recorded on the issue of limitation. This is on the admitted facts. Thus, on the basis of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code read with Article 113 of the Limitation Act by setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the trial court and by allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.”, the court observed.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR Mr. Ankit Sahu, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Sukriti Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Singh, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Case Title: INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION VERSUS SRI BALA & CO.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 37