Suit Was Barred By Limitation: SC Restores Trial Court Order Dismissing Man's Plea For Compensation In LA Proceedings
The Supreme Court recently allowed the appeals filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act.
The State had challenged the judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court wherein it allowed the appeal of the respondent and quashed and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar held, “… High Court has not framed any substantial question of law on the limitation and/or the suit being barred by limitation. … the suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
The Bench said that the High Court did not go on general and broad principles and not at all considered the real facts of the matter.
Advocate Abhimanyu Jhamba and Advocate Samir Ali Khan appeared for the appellants while no one represented the respondent.
In this case, the respondent instituted a suit before the Trial Court for declaration, mandatory inunction and seeking direction to the appellants to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of his land and damage to his fruit bearing trees. The appellants without complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, constructed a road known as “Tikkari-Larot-Bodra Kwar road” on the respondent’s land, but no compensation was paid to him and the fruit bearing plants were also damaged.
The appellants contended that the suit was barred by law of limitation and that the respondent was working as Mate in the Department and hence, the road was constructed on his request. The respondent therefore waived off his claim of compensation as the road was constructed with his consent in the year 1987. The Trial Court allowed the plea of the appellants against the respondent but the same got dismissed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… the High Court without even considering the issue with respect to the limitation has allowed the Second Appeal and has quashed and set aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and consequently has decreed the suit.”
The Court asserted that when the Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of facts in the exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC.
“Even the substantial question of law framed by the High Court also cannot be said to be a substantial question of law at all”, observed the Court.
The Court, therefore, restored the judgment passed by the Trial Court being confirmed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals and quashed and set aside the judgment of the High Court.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi