Whether the court should reject plaint if the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact?

 It is clear from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment that the policy of the section 14 of the Limitation Act is to afford protection to a litigant when he institutes a proceeding in a wrong court provided this act was done in good faith and bona fide. The section has to be interpreted liberally in a manner to advance the cause of justice rather than to abort the proceedings. The plaintiff has to establish the fact that the prior proceedings have been instituted/prosecuted in good faith and due diligence. This is obviously a question of fact which the plaintiff has to prove.

 I may note that usually the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. What defendant No. 1 seeks is an adjudication of the issue of limitation at the initial stage itself before even an opportunity has been given to the plaintiff to show that it was prosecuting the litigation before the Bombay High Court with due diligence and in good faith.{Para 22}

24. While considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only averments made in the plaint are to be looked at and the accompanying documents. Reference in this context may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Tilak Raj Bhagat vs. Ranjit Kaur wherein this court held as follows:-

"6. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at the averments made in the plaint by taking the same as correct on its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof. Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff."

28. Hence, for the purpose of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint have to be taken presuming them to be correct on the face of it along with the documents filed in support of the plaint. It is only in cases where the averments in the plaint itself indicate the cause of action to be barred by limitation that the plaint can be rejected at the initial stage. This must be on a mere ex facie reading of the plaint.

 As noted above, every act of the plaintiff in filing a suit in a court other than the court which as per the Agreement has exclusive jurisdiction, does not necessarily imply that the act was done without due diligence or in good faith. It would be for the plaintiff to lead evidence on this aspect. What the defendant want is that the defence of the defendant be taken into account and the plaint be dismissed without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence to show that the reason for pursuing the matter before the Bombay High Court was bona fide and with due diligence. This plea is clearly not permissible. On a ex-facie reading of the plaint it cannot be said that it is barred by limitation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 105/2018

Decided On: 15.06.2020

Modtech Furniture Private Ltd.  Vs.  NCUBE Planning Design Private Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jayant Nath, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1236/2020

Print Page

Whether litigant can be punished for contempt of court if he is making private correspondence with Judge?

At the same, time it has to be borne in mind that
the power to punish a person for having committed criminal
contempt has to be used cautiously and sparingly. A proper
balance has to be struck between freedom of speech and
right of the judicial officers to administer justice without any
obstruction from the litigants or anyone else for that matter.
Litigants, at the same time, cannot be allowed to take law
into their own hands and start browbeating and insulting the
Court before whom his matter is pending for adjudication.
Litigants therefore cannot scandalize the Court by writing
letters to him/her at his/her residential or office address.
Litigants cannot file applications for adjournment or for any
other purpose and send it to the Court's residence or office.
Litigants cannot threaten or induce the Court through
correspondence. If this is permitted, all litigants will start
writing letters to the Court and this would seriously hamper
fair and transparent administration of justice. In the present
case, the Respondent/Contemnor has done this with impunity

and has stated that he is not afraid and has tried to justify his
conduct.
In our view, the conduct of the Respondent does
not amount to fair criticism of a judicial act not does it

amount to any statement made by him in good faith.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REFERENCE NO. 4 OF 2014
Smt. S.A. Sinha 
Metropolitan Magistrate, 
7th Court, Borivali, Mumbai  
 Vs.
Dr. Leo Rebello 
CORAM: V.M. KANADE &
 REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON: 29th February, 2016

Print Page

Whether benefit of S14 of Limitation Act can be given to plaintiff without hearing other side?

 Shri Deshpande, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the earlier civil suit was dismissed on merits and not on any technical
grounds and, therefore, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be
given to the respondent. Moreover, the learned District Judge could not have
granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the respondent without
there being any application and without there being any pleadings in that
regards. The grant of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be said
to be a mechanical act of the Court but whether the plaintiff was prosecuting the
earlier proceedings with “due diligence” and in good faith is required to be
adjudicated and it can be done only after giving an opportunity to the defendant
to point out that the plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act. The learned District Judge has committed an error in granting
benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the respondent without there being
any application or pleadings on the record to substantiate that the respondent
was prosecuting the earlier proceedings with due diligence and in good faith.
 In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the District

Court is unsustainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6454/2005
Rajendra Antharam Tijoriwala and Gujrathi,

V
 Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust,



CORAM
: Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 20.12.2014
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ179

Print Page

When burden of proof is on subsequent purchaser?

 As noted earlier, the expression 'bona fide purchaser'

means and implies a purchaser who purchases a property without

notice, actual or constructive of any adverse rights, claims, interest

or equities of other in and to the property sold. Therefore, at the

stage of seeking leave to implead/carry out consequential

amendment, in our opinion, there was no question of adverting to

any evidence or the lack of it in determining whether the

subsequent purchaser was indeed a bona fide purchaser for value

and without notice of the original contract.

35] The provision contained in section 19(b) of the said

Act which affords protection to a subsequent purchaser who

purchases the contracted property in good faith and for value

without notice of the original contract, is in the nature of an

exception to the general rule. Therefore, it is a settled position in
law that the onus of proof of good faith is upon the subsequent
purchaser who takes a plea that he is an innocent or bona fide
purchaser for value and without notice of the original contract. In

the case of Shankarlal Narayandas Mundade v The New Mofussil

Co. Ltd. & ors. AIR (33) 1946 Privy Council 97, in the context of

section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which corresponds to

section 19 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, the Privy Council, by

relying upon its earlier authority in the case of Bhup Narain Singh

V. Gokul Chand Mahton AIR

1934 PC 68 has held thus:

“Their Lordships have found it unnecessary to

examine the evidence which was called on behalf of

the plaintiff to show that these defendants in fact had

notice of the earlier contract, since a decision of this

Board is clear authority for the proposition that the

burden of proving good faith and lack of notice lay

upon the defendants”.

36] In the case of R.K.Mohaammed Ubadullah Vs. Hajee C.

Abdul Wahab (D) by L.Rs. AIR

2001 SC 1658 , in the context of

section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Supreme Court has

observed thus :

14. ….........

As can be seen from Section 19(a) and (b)

extracted above specific performance of a contract

can be enforced against (a) either party thereto and

(b) any person claiming under him by a title arising

subsequent to the contract, except a transferee for

value who has paid his money in good faith and

without notice of the original contract. Section 19(b)

protects the bona fide purchaser in good faith for

value without notice of the original contract. This

protection is in the nature of exception to the general

rule. Hence, the onus of proof of good faith is on

the purchaser who takes the plea that he is an

innocent purchaser. Good faith is a question of

fact to be considered and decided on the facts of

each case.

(emphasis supplied)

37] The pleadings in the context of the proposed

amendment have therefore to be construed in the light of legal

position that the protection afforded to the subsequent purchaser

by section 19(b) of the said Act is in the nature of an exception to

the general rule and therefore, the onus of proving good faith is
on the purchaser who takes the plea that he is an innocent
purchaser. Ultimately, good faith is also question of fact to be
considered and decided on the facts of each case. For this purpose,
an opportunity has to be afforded to the parties to lead evidence
in the course of trial. We are, therefore, unable to share the view

taken by the learned Single Judge that in the facts and

circumstances of the present case there were insufficient pleadings

or evidence on the aspect of the subsequent purchaser not being a

bona fide purchaser for value and without notice of the original

contract.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.42 OF 2014
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.2087 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO.1241 OF 2007

Nitin Gandhi  vs. Dinyar Pheroz Dubash 

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &
M.S.SONAK, J.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09 Oct. 2014
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ850

Print Page

What is basic concept of good faith in contempt of court?

The expression "good faith" in criminal jurisprudence has a definite connotation. Its import is totally different from saying that the person concerned has honestly believed the truth of what is said. Good faith is defined in Section 52 of I.P.C. thus :

"Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' which is done or believed without the due care and attention."

56. Therefore, the meaning of the expression "good faith" is what is done with "due care and attention". Due care denotes the degree of reasonableness in the care sought to be exercised. So, before a person proposes to make an imputation, he must first make an enquiry into the factum of the imputation which he proposes to make. It is not enough that he does just a make-believe show for an enquiry. The enquiry expected of him is of such a depth as a reasonable and prudent man would make with the genuine intention in knowing the real truth of the imputation. If he does not do so he cannot claim that what he did was bona fide i.e. done in good faith. Thus, a contemner, if he is to establish "good faith" has to say that he conducted a reasonable and proper enquiry before making an imputation. This is the meaning and interpretation given for the expression "good faith" by the Apex Court in AIR 2001 SC 2374.

Madras High Court

In Re: R. Kaaruppan vs Unknown on 17 April, 2004

Equivalent citations: 2004 CriLJ 4284

Bench: M Karpagavinayagam, F I Kalifullah, S A Kumar

Print Page