The Supreme Court on Wednesday reiterated that limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties.
The Court reiterated this while hearing a Civil Appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to remit the case to the Trial Court for framing additional issues related to limitation.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, "It is reiterated at this juncture that limitation is a matter of statute and must be strictly enforced, more so when the earlier transaction or sale is well within the knowledge of the parties. This principle assumes greater significance in the present case, where the delay extends to seventeen years for filing the suit, despite the fact that they were arrayed as respondents/Judgment Debtors in the execution proceedings. Furthermore, protection of bona fide purchasers for value is a significant consideration, and any disturbance to their rights or titles after such a long period, would create uncertainty in property transactions and undermine the sanctity of court sale.”
The Court clarified that courts have the authority to examine legal issues such as limitation or jurisdiction even without a specific plea, provided the matter does not require factual evidence. It further noted that limitation can fall under broader issues considered by the First Appellate Court, and the absence of a distinct issue framed by the Trial or Appellate Court does not invalidate their judgment or prejudice the parties involved.
“Therefore, we are of the view that 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; and that, 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.” the Court stated.
Read Here: