Leading Supreme Court Judgment on legal consequences of filing of premature suit

We may now briefly sum up the correct position of law which is as follows :

A suit of a civil nature disclosing a cause of action even if filed before the date on which the plaintiff became actually entitled to sue and claim the relief founded on such cause of action is not to be necessarily dismissed for such reason.

The question of suit being premature does not go to the root of jurisdiction of the Court; the Court entertaining such a suit and passing decree therein is not acting without jurisdiction but it is in the judicial discretion of the Court to grant decree or not. The Court would examine whether any irreparable prejudice was caused to the defendant on account of the suit having been filed a little before the date on which the plaintiff's entitlement to relief became due and whether by granting the relief in such suit a manifest injustice would be caused to the defendant. Taking into consideration the explanation offered by the plaintiff for filing the suit before the date of maturity of cause of action, the Court may deny the plaintiff his costs or may make such other order adjusting equities and satisfying the ends of justice as it may deem fit in its discretion. The conduct of the parties and unmerited advantage to plaintiff or disadvantage amounting to prejudice to the defendant, if any, would be relevant factors. A plea as to non-maintainability of the suit on the ground of its being premature should be promptly raised by the defendant and pressed for decision. It will equally be the responsibility of the Court to examine and promptly dispose of such a plea. The plea may not be permitted to be raised at a belated stage of the suit. However, the Court shall not exercise its discretion in favour of decreeing a premature suit in the following cases : (i) When there is a mandatory bar created by a statute which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event; (ii) when the institution of the suit before the lapse of a particular time or occurrence of a particular event would have the effect of defeating a public policy or public purpose; (iii) if such premature institution renders the presentation itself patently void and the invalidity is incurable such as when it goes to the root of the Court's jurisdiction, and (iv) where the lis is not confined to parties alone and affects and involves persons other than those arrayed as parties, such as in an election petition which affects and involves the entire constituency. (See : Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath and Ors. - MANU/SC/0386/1987 : AIR1987SC1926). One more category of suits which may be added to -- where leave of the Court or some authority is mandatorily required to be obtained before the institution and was not so obtained.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2390 of 2002

Decided On: 11.03.2005

 Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd.  Vs.  Union Bank of India

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Lahoti, C.J. and G.P. Mathur, J.

Author: R.C. Lahoti, C.J.

Citation: (2005) 4 SCC 315, AIR 2005 SC 189, MANU/SC/0195/2005

Print Page

Whether Court should dismiss eviction suit filed before the expiry of the statutory period prescribed U/S 15(2) of Maharashtra rent control Act as a premature suit?

I have given due consideration to the respective submissions. The facts on record indicate that the respondent who is the landlord had issued a notice to the tenant on 11-2-2008 demanding arrears of rent. This notice was served on the tenant on 19-2-2008 but the same was not complied. The suit was filed on 1-3-2008. In this factual background, the aspect whether the petitioner can be permitted to raise the plea that the suit as filed was before expiry of the statutory period of ninety days from service of the demand notice deserves to be considered.

The provisions of section 15(2) of the said Act read thus:

Section 15(2): No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of ninety days next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

What has been prohibited is the institution of a suit for recovery of possession against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of standard rent or permitted increases. Unless the period of ninety days has expired after service of the notice of demand on the tenant, such suit cannot be instituted. Hence there would be no jurisdiction with the Court to entertain a suit that has been instituted prior to the expiry of the statutory period of ninety days. In Vitthalbhai (P) Ltd. (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court considered the fate of a premature suit. In paragraph 22 thereof it was observed thus:

"... However, the court shall not exercise its discretion in favour of decreeing a premature suit in the following cases (i) when there is a mandatory bar created by a statute which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event: (ii) when the institution of the suit before the lapse of a particular time or occurrence of a particular event would have the effect of defeating a public policy or public purpose; (iii) if such premature institution renders the presentation itself patently void and the invalidity is incurable such as when it goes to the root of the court's jurisdiction; and (iv) where the lis is not confined to parties alone and affects and involves persons other than those arrayed as parties, such as in an election petition which affects and involves the entire constituency."

The case in hand pertains to contingency No. (i) as contemplated by the Honourable Supreme Court. The said defect of premature institution also renders the presentation of the suit void thereby affecting the court's jurisdiction.

6. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the suit was filed by the respondent prior to expiry of ninety days from the service of the demand notice. The presentation of the suit itself being void and going to the court's jurisdiction, the aforesaid plea would have to be permitted to be raised though it was not raised earlier. The aforesaid defect being incurable as the landlord could not have cured the said defect after filing the suit is without any doubt. Even if such plea was raised in the written statement, the defect in question was incurable. On the other hand if it is found that the Court has entertained the suit on the basis of presentation of the plaint which was patently void and affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, said legal plea would have to be permitted to be raised. This plea does not call for any factual adjudication as the date of service of the notice on the tenant and the date of presentation of the plaint are not in dispute. Moreover, the decree for eviction has been passed only on the ground of arrears of rent. The observations of learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the decision in Digambar Hari Sonpatki (supra) can be relied upon.

7. In view of aforesaid, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the aforesaid facts is that the suit for eviction was filed in a manner contrary to provisions of section 15(2) of the said Act. The trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a prematurely instituted suit. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 3788 of 2015

Decided On: 07.07.2016

Jitendra Nagarkar vs Mohanlal Agrawal,

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2659/2016,2016 SCC ONLINE BOM 7056,

(2016) 6 Mah LJ 797 : (2016) 6 Bom CR 743, 2017(2) ALLMR 69

Print Page

Whether second suit will be barred by res judicata if first suit was dismissed as it was premature?

 It is not that every matter decided in a former suit, can be pleaded as res-judicata in a subsequent suit. To consider a matter "res-judicata", one of the conditions is, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit. To support the plea of res-judicata, it is not enough that the same matter shall be in issue. It is also important that the matter was heard and finally decided. The expression "heard and finally decided" refers to a matter on which the Court, having exercised its judicial mind, has recorded a finding and arrived at a decision on a contested matter.

14. Thus, taking into consideration the facts of the case and the ratio laid down in the case of Shedon Singh (supra), I hold and conclude that since the rejection of the first suit on the ground that the same was premature and not on merits, the findings rendered in the first suit are not binding on the parties, as well as, on the learned trial Judge in the second suit on the ground of res-judicata. The Question is answered accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 795 of 2005

Decided On: 16.04.2019

 Shrikant Waman Pawaskar Vs. Deepali Dinanath Pawaskar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Citation: 2019(6) MHLJ 447

Print Page

When court should not entertain premature suit?

I have given due consideration to the respective submissions. The facts on record indicate that the respondent who is the landlord had issued a notice to the tenant on 11-2-2008 demanding arrears of rent. This notice was served on the tenant on 19-2-2008 but the same was not complied. The suit was filed on 1-3-2008. In this factual background, the aspect whether the petitioner can be permitted to raise the plea that the suit as filed was before expiry of the statutory period of ninety days from service of the demand notice deserves to be considered.

The provisions of section 15(2) of the said Act read thus:

Section 15(2): No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of ninety days next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

What has been prohibited is the institution of a suit for recovery of possession against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of standard rent or permitted increases. Unless the period of ninety days has expired after service of the notice of demand on the tenant, such suit cannot be instituted. Hence there would be no jurisdiction with the Court to entertain a suit that has been instituted prior to the expiry of the statutory period of ninety days. In Vitthalbhai (P) Ltd. (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court considered the fate of a premature suit. In paragraph 22 thereof it was observed thus:

"... However, the court shall not exercise its discretion in favour of decreeing a premature suit in the following cases (i) when there is a mandatory bar created by a statute which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event: (ii) when the institution of the suit before the lapse of a particular time or occurrence of a particular event would have the effect of defeating a public policy or public purpose; (iii) if such premature institution renders the presentation itself patently void and the invalidity is incurable such as when it goes to the root of the court's jurisdiction; and (iv) where the lis is not confined to parties alone and affects and involves persons other than those arrayed as parties, such as in an election petition which affects and involves the entire constituency."

The case in hand pertains to contingency No. (i) as contemplated by the Honourable Supreme Court. The said defect of premature institution also renders the presentation of the suit void thereby affecting the court's jurisdiction.

6. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the suit was filed by the respondent prior to expiry of ninety days from the service of the demand notice. The presentation of the suit itself being void and going to the court's jurisdiction, the aforesaid plea would have to be permitted to be raised though it was not raised earlier. The aforesaid defect being incurable as the landlord could not have cured the said defect after filing the suit is without any doubt. Even if such plea was raised in the written statement, the defect in question was incurable. On the other hand if it is found that the Court has entertained the suit on the basis of presentation of the plaint which was patently void and affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, said legal plea would have to be permitted to be raised. This plea does not call for any factual adjudication as the date of service of the notice on the tenant and the date of presentation of the plaint are not in dispute. Moreover, the decree for eviction has been passed only on the ground of arrears of rent. The observations of learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the decision in Digambar Hari Sonpatki (supra) can be relied upon.

7. In view of aforesaid, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the aforesaid facts is that the suit for eviction was filed in a manner contrary to provisions of section 15(2) of the said Act. The trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a prematurely instituted suit. The Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal also exercised jurisdiction thereby confirming the decree passed in the suit of which the trial Court could not have taken cognizance. The only inevitable result is that the decree passed by the trial Court as maintained by the Appellate Court is without jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 3788 of 2015

Decided On: 07.07.2016

 Jitendra Vs.  Mohanlal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2017(2) ALLMR 69

Print Page

Whether second suit is tenable if first suit is dismissed on ground that it was premature?

Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that, when the first suit was dismissed having found it was pre-mature, subsequent suit cannot be said to be barred by res-judicata. Mr. Sawant, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, reported in MANU/SC/0264/1966 : AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1332 (V 53 G 257), wherein it is held that -

"In order that a matter may be said to have been heard and finally decided, the decision in the former suit must have been on the merits. Where, for example, the former suit was dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or misjoinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letters of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued or for want of cause of action or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision not being on the merits would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit."

In the case at hand, the first suit was dismissed predominantly on the ground that it was premature and therefore the latter suit was not barred by res-judicata.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 795 of 2005

Decided On: 16.04.2019

Shrikant Waman Pawaskar  Vs. Deepali Dinanath Pawaskar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
Citation: 2019 SCC ONLINE Bom 835

Print Page

Whether court has jurisdiction to try premature suit?

In Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, (2005) 4 SCC 315 Supreme Court of India exhaustively considered the issue of a suit being premature and its consequences, and in paragraph 22 of the judgment summarized its conclusions, which are as under:

"A suit of a civil nature disclosing a cause of action even if filed before the date on which the plaintiff became actually entitled to sue and claim the relief founded on such cause of action is not to be necessarily dismissed for such reason. The question of suit being premature does not go to the root of jurisdiction of the court; the court entertaining such a suit and passing decree therein is not acting without jurisdiction but it is in the judicial discretion of the court to grant decree or not. 

The court would examine whether any irreparable prejudice was caused to the defendant on account of the suit having been filed a little before the date on which the plaintiff's entitlement to relief became due and whether by granting the relief in such suit a manifest injustice would be caused to the defendant. Taking into consideration the explanation offered by the plaintiff for filing the suit before the date of maturity of cause of action, the court may deny the plaintiff his costs or may make such other order adjusting equities and satisfying the ends of justice as it may deem fit in its discretion. 

The conduct of the parties and unmerited advantage to the plaintiff or disadvantage amounting to prejudice to the defendant, if any, would be relevant factors. A plea as to non-maintainability of the suit on the ground of its being premature should be promptly raised by the defendant and pressed for decision. It will equally be the responsibility of the court to examine and promptly dispose of such a plea. The plea may not be permitted to be raised at a belated stage of the suit. 

However, the court shall not exercise its discretion in favour of decreeing a premature suit in the following cases : 

(i) when there is a mandatory bar created by a statute which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event; 

(ii) when the institution of the suit before the lapse of a particular time or occurrence of a particular event would have the effect of defeating a public policy or public purpose; 

(iii) if such premature institution renders the presentation itself patently void and the invalidity is incurable such as when it goes to the root of the court's jurisdiction; and 

(iv) where the lis is not confined to parties alone and affects and involves persons other than those arrayed as parties, such as in an election petition which affects and involves the entire constituency. 

One more category of suits which may be added to the above, is: where leave of the court or some authority is mandatorily required to be obtained before the institution of the suit and was not so obtained. ”

Supreme Court of India

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd vs Union Bank Of India on 11 March, 2005

Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  2390 of 2002

Print Page

When premature suit is not maintainable?

After so stating, the Bench ruled that the plea as regards the maintainability of the suit on the ground of its being premature should be promptly raised and it will be equally the responsibility of the Court to dispose of such a plea. Thereafter, it was observed as follows:-

"However, the court shall not exercise its discretion in favour of decreeing a premature suit in the following cases: (i) when there is a mandatory bar created by a statute which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event; (ii) when the institution of the suit before the lapse of a particular time or occurrence of a particular event would have the effect of defeating a public policy or public purpose; (iii) if such premature institution renders the presentation itself patently void and the invalidity is incurable such as when it goes to the root of the court's jurisdiction; and (iv) where the lis is not confined to parties alone and affects and involves persons other than those arrayed as parties, such as in an election petition which affects and involves the entire constituency. (See Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath 13.) One more category of suits which may be added to the above, is: where leave of the court or some authority is mandatorily required to be obtained before the institution of the suit and was not so obtained."

[Emphasis Supplied]

Supreme Court of India

M/S. Pushpa Sahkari Avas Samiti ... vs M/S. Gangotri Sahkari Avas ... on 30 March, 2012

Bench: Deepak Verma, Dipak Misra

Reportable

Citation: AIR2012SC1788, 2013(1)AJR796, 2012(4)ALD22, 2012 (92) ALR 278, 2012(4)ALT37(SC), 2012 4 AWC3628SC, 2012(5)BomCR162, 115(2013)CLT136(SC), (2012)4MLJ341, 2012(3)MPLJ495, 2012(1)RCR(Rent)312, 2012(4)SCALE93, (2012)4SCC751

Print Page

Whether court should entertain premature suit for specific performance of contract?

 Furthermore, according to the plaintiff, which fact is also stated in the plaints filed in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833, on the date when the aforesaid two suits were filed the relief of specific performance was premature inasmuch as the time for execution of the sale documents by the defendant in terms of the agreements dated 27.7.2005 had not elapsed. According to the plaintiff, it is only after the expiry of the aforesaid period of time and upon failure of the defendant to execute the sale deeds despite the legal notice dated 24.2.2006 that the cause of action to claim the relief of specific performance had accrued. The above stand of the plaintiff found favour with the High Court. We disagree. A suit claiming a relief to which the plaintiff may become entitled at a subsequent point of time, though may be termed as premature, yet, can not per se be dismissed to be presented on a future date. There is no universal rule to the above effect inasmuch as “the question of a suit being premature does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court” as held by this Court in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India[6]. In the aforesaid case this Court has taken the view that whether a premature suit is required to be entertained or not is a question of discretion and unless “there is a mandatory bar created by a statute which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event”, the Court must weigh and balance the several competing factors that are required to be considered including the question as to whether any useful purpose would be served by dismissing the suit as premature as the same would entitle the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on a subsequent date. We may usefully add in this connection that there is no provision in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requiring a plaintiff claiming the relief of specific performance to wait for expiry of the due date for performance of the agreement in a situation where the defendant may have made his intentions clear by his overt acts.

Supreme Court of India

M/S Virgo Industries (Eng) P.Ltd. vs M/S Venturetech Solutions P.Ltd. on 7 September, 2012

Print Page