Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Adamsaheb, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 15.07.2017 passed by the Family Court at Belagavi in O.S.No.58/2016. The Family Court had rejected the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. The respondent, Raziyabegum, had filed the suit seeking a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction, alleging that the petitioner had been denying her maintenance and other benefits since 2014. The petitioner contended that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of three years from the date of denial. The High Court examined the plaint and found that paragraph 10 of the plaint specifically stated that the cause of action arose on 01.01.2014 and continues to date. The court held that the denial of maintenance is a continuing wrong and the cause of action continues de die in diem under Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. The court further held that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if the plaint discloses a cause of action, even if the suit may ultimately fail on limitation. The revision petition was dismissed, and the Family Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Rejection of Plaint - Limitation - The court considered whether the plaint was barred by limitation. The Family Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The High Court held that the plaint discloses a continuing cause of action as per Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and therefore the suit is not barred by limitation. The revision petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 23 - Continuing Cause of Action - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been denying her maintenance and other benefits since 2014. The court held that such denial constitutes a continuing wrong, and the cause of action continues de die in diem. Hence, the suit is not barred by limitation. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit is barred by limitation and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC when the plaint discloses a continuing cause of action.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order dated 15.07.2017 passed by the Family Court at Belagavi on IA-3 in O.S.No.58/2016 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Section 23 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- continuing cause of action
- rejection of plaint
- limitation
