Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by Reliance Industries Limited against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, dated 21/3/1998, rejecting the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.61/95 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The appellants had filed the suit on 20/06/1995 for recovery of Rs.15,67,230.72 with future interest at 24% per annum from the respondents. The claim arose out of a contract for purchase of Hydrobromic Acid from M/s First Intercontinental Corporation, Irving, Texas, USA. The goods were shipped by the respondents (carriers) and were delivered on 30.08.1993. The appellants alleged short delivery and claimed damages. The trial court held that the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 11 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies to suits for compensation for short delivery of goods. The court found that the cause of action arose on the date of delivery (30.08.1993) and the suit filed on 20.06.1995 was beyond three years. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting that the plaint on its face showed the suit was time-barred, and no further inquiry was needed. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Article 11 - Short Delivery of Goods - Time-barred Suit - The suit for damages for short delivery of goods must be filed within three years from the date of delivery or the date on which the loss occurred. In this case, the goods were delivered on 30.08.1993, and the suit was filed on 20.06.1995, which was beyond three years. The court held that the plaint was rightly rejected as time-barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 1-5)
B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Limitation - When the plaint on the face of it shows that the suit is barred by limitation, the court must reject the plaint. The court need not consider the merits of the claim. The trial court's order rejecting the plaint was upheld. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for recovery of damages for short delivery of goods was barred by limitation under Article 11 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel dated 21/3/1998 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 11
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Time-barred claim
- Rejection of plaint
- Short delivery of goods
- Cause of action
Case Details
First Appeal No.1127 of 2005
Milind Sathe with Paritosh Jaiswal for Appellants; V.R. Rambhadran for Respondents
Reliance Industries Limited
P & O Containers Limited and P & O (India Agencies) Private Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against rejection of plaint in a recovery suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought recovery of Rs.15,67,230.72 with future interest at 24% per annum from respondents.
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed damages for short delivery of Hydrobromic Acid shipped by respondents.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as time-barred.
Issues
Whether the suit for recovery of damages for short delivery of goods was barred by limitation under Article 11 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit was within limitation as the cause of action arose on the date of delivery (30.08.1993) and the suit was filed on 20.06.1995, which is within three years.
Respondents contended that the suit was time-barred as the limitation period under Article 11 is three years from the date of delivery, and the suit was filed beyond that period.
Ratio Decidendi
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it is barred by limitation on the face of it. For a suit for compensation for short delivery of goods, the limitation period under Article 11 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years from the date of delivery. In this case, the goods were delivered on 30.08.1993 and the suit was filed on 20.06.1995, which is beyond three years, hence the plaint was rightly rejected.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel on 21/3/1998 below Exhibit-16 in Special Civil Suit No.61/95, rejecting the Plaint under Order-VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 since the claim made by the appellants-plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs.15,67,230.72/- with future interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the respondents was/is time-barred.
The appellants carry on business as manufacturers of Purified Therpthlic Acid (P.T.A.). One of the essential ingredients required by the appellants for the manufacture of P.T.A. is Hydrobromic Acid.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Special Civil Suit No.61/95 on 20/06/1995 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel for recovery of amount. The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Exhibit-16) for rejection of plaint on ground of limitation. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint on 21/3/1998. The appellants filed First Appeal No.1127 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 11
