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.