Target CLAT 2026 (Crash Course) Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Indore) Starting On: 22 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Lucknow Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Karol Bagh Starting On: 12 May 2025 (Admission Open)
         









List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Civil Law

Primary Relief Time Barred

 17-Apr-2025

Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr v. Hitesh P Sanghvi & Ors. 

“Once the plaint or suit in respect of the main relief stands time barred the other ancillary relief claimed also falls down.” 

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti held that if in a suit primary relief is time barred the ancillary reliefs also become time barred. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr v. Hitesh P Sanghvi & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr v. Hitesh P Sanghvi & Ors. (2025) Case?   

  • Hitesh P. Sanghvi (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No.1758/2017 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against four defendants including three daughters and a grandson of his late father. 
  • The plaintiff sought to declare a Will dated 4th February 2014 and a Codicil dated 20th September 2014 executed by his late father Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi as null and void. 
  • Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi died on 21st October 2014, and in the first week of November 2014, the defendants revealed the existence of the Will and Codicil to the plaintiff. 
  • The plaintiff filed the suit on 21st November 2017, claiming that the cause of action arose on three dates: 4th February 2014 (Will registration), 20th September 2014 (Codicil registration), and 21st October 2014 (death of his father). 
  • The defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than three years after the plaintiff gained knowledge of the Will and Codicil. 
  • The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad allowed the applications and rejected the plaint, holding that as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit should have been filed within three years from the first week of November 2014. 
  • The High Court, by its judgment dated 8th February 2024, reversed this order and restored the suit for decision on merits, reasoning that parties should be permitted to lead evidence on the point of limitation and that the plaint sought other reliefs apart from declaring the Will and Codicil null and void. 
  • The appellants have challenged this judgment of the High Court in the present appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Court observed that it is very clear from the plaint that the primary relief is for seeking declaration of Will and Codicil to be null and void and the relief of permanent injunction is consequential and dependent on the primary relief. 
  • As per the averments in the plaint the plaintiff himself asserted that the plaintiff had acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil only in first week of November 2014.  
  • The Court also observed that Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) would be attracted in the facts of the present case as the relief of declaration in the present facts does not fall under Article 56 and 57 of LA. 
  •  Article 58 of LA provides that the limitation period is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. 
  • In the present facts even if the limitation is calculated from the date of knowledge of Will or Codicil it would run from first week of November 2014 and end in the first week of November 2017. 
  • The Court held that in the facts of the present case the suit was ex facie barred by limitation for which no evidence is required to be adduced by the parties. 
  • From the reading of the plaint in the facts of the present case the Court held that the other reliefs claimed in the facts are dependent on the primary relief i.e. declaration. 
  • Thus, the Court finally held that once the suit stands barred in respect of the primary relief it is falls down in respect of other ancillary reliefs as well. 
  • With regard to the submission that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without allowing party to lead evidence, the Court held that the same is without substance.   
  • The Court held that in the present facts the issue of limitation is a pure question of fact and in view of the admitted facts the allegations stand concluded, and no evidence is needed as such. 
  • Thus, the Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order passed by the Trial Court.

What is Rejection of Plaint? 

  • Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides for grounds of rejection of plaint. 
  • The constituents of the provision are: 
    • A court must reject a plaint if it does not show a valid cause of action. 
    • A plaint will be rejected if the plaintiff undervalues the relief claimed and fails to correct it within the time given by the court. 
    • The court will reject a plaint if it is properly valued but filed on insufficient stamp paper, and the plaintiff fails to provide proper stamp paper within the time given. 
    • A plaint must be rejected if it shows on its face that the suit is barred by law. 
    • The court will reject a plaint if it is not filed in duplicate as required. 
    • A plaint will be rejected if the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9. 
      • The court cannot extend the time for correcting valuation or providing proper stamp paper unless it records reasons showing the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional circumstances. 
      • The court must be satisfied that refusing to extend time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff before granting an extension. 

Constitutional Law

Pension is Hard Earned Property

 17-Apr-2025

Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs v. State of Chhattisgarh

“A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant State Government to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.” 

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court  

Why in News? 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that pension is a constitutional right and property under Article 300-A, and cannot be withheld or reduced without statutory authority and due process of law. 

  • The Chhattisgarh High Court held this in the matter of Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs v. State of Chhattisgarh,2025 Case? 

  • Rajkumar Gonekar was appointed as Assistant Director in 1990 and later promoted to Deputy Director in 2000. 
  • He was subsequently demoted to the post of Assistant Director due to certain corrections in the gradation list. 
  • Following court orders, he was reinstated as Deputy Director and continued serving in that capacity until his retirement on 31st January 2018, upon reaching the age of superannuation. 
  • During his service, allegations of misappropriation were made against him, to which he submitted replies denying any wrongdoing and asserting that he had acted in accordance with the law. 
  • In 2016-17, notices were issued to him regarding alleged misappropriation of public funds. 
  • After his retirement, on 13th December 2018, a show cause notice was issued to him requiring a response, which he provided on 25th January 2019, again denying all allegations. 
  • On 15th February 2021, an order was passed granting permission to recover Rs. 9.23 lakhs from Gonekar's pension under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 
  • Gonekar filed a writ petition challenging this recovery order, arguing it was passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner without following due process of law. 
  • During the pendency of the petition, Rajkumar Gonekar passed away on 20th June 2024, after which his legal heirs were impleaded in the case. 
  • The State authorities contended that proper procedure was followed, as notices regarding the alleged misappropriation were issued before Gonekar's retirement, and action was taken only after receiving his response. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Court observed that pension and gratuity are not bounties but hard-earned benefits accruing to employees through long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service, constituting a "property" right protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
  • The Court noted that a person cannot be deprived of a pension without due process of law, as mandated by the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 300-A. 
  • Upon scrutiny of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the Court determined that recovery from pension for pecuniary loss caused to the Government is permissible only when the employee is found guilty in a departmental or judicial proceeding. 
  • The Court found that in the present case, apart from a show cause notice and the petitioner's reply, no evidence existed to establish that the petitioner was found guilty of any offence in a judicial or disciplinary proceeding. 
  • The Court observed that the principles of natural justice require that even in administrative decisions affecting individual rights, a reasonable opportunity to be heard must be afforded to the affected party. 
  • The Court held that the State's attempt to withhold part of pension or gratuity without statutory provision and under the pretext of administrative instruction was unconstitutional and could not be countenanced. 
  • The Court concluded that the recovery order exercising power under Rule 9 was unsustainable in law due to the absence of a conclusive finding of guilt through proper proceedings. 

What is Article 300-A of the COI? 

  • Article 300-A stipulates that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law," establishing a constitutional protection against arbitrary deprivation of property. 
  • Prior to 1978, the right to property was enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the COI, which provided citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. 
  • The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property from the category of fundamental rights by deleting Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, and repositioned it as a constitutional right under Article 300-A. 
  • The Supreme Court, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), held that despite not being classified as a fundamental right, any law depriving an individual of property must still adhere to the principles of being just, fair, and reasonable as mandated by Articles 14, 19, and 21. 
  • In B.K. Ravichandra v. Union of India (2020), the Court emphasized the similarity between the phrasing of Article 300-A and Articles 21 and 265, affirming that the guarantee enshrined in Article 300-A cannot be diluted. 
  • The constitutional protection afforded by Article 300-A requires the State to follow due process and proper legal authority when depriving a person of their private property. 
  • Despite the downgrading from fundamental right status, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to property constitutes both a constitutional right and a human right deserving robust protection.