THROW BALL FEDERATION OF INDIA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff claims to be the true and authentic sports federation formed in the year 1977 for promoting sports of "Throw Ball in the country. The plaintiff was registered at Jind, Haryana, vide registration number 113/82-83 dated 5.5.1982 under Societies Registration Act, 1880. It is alleged in the plaint that Mr. T. Ramanna, who was appointed as Honorary Secretary General in the meeting of the plaintiff held on 11.8.1989, till the next general elections, got defendant no.3, Society registered with Registrar of Societies, Bangalore, vide registration number 38/89-90 dated 13.4.1989. It is further alleged that the plaintiff had received due recognition from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, vide its letter dated 11.8.1992. However, Mr. T. Ramanna in collusion with the officers in the Ministry, was able to substitute his name as Secretary of "Throw Ball Federation of India" and also substitute the plaintiff federations registration certificate bearing number 113/82-83 with registration certificate of defendant no.3 bearing number 38/89-90. The Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Department of Youth and Sports Affairs started corresponding with Mr. T. Ramanna and some officials of the Ministry helped him in getting recognized as Secretary of ,,Throw Ball Federation of India. The following reliefs have been claimed in the present suit:

(2.) IA No.20093/2011 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant no.3 for rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the suit is clearly barred by limitation.

(3.) ARTICLE 58 of the Limitation Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Supreme court in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and another [2011 (9) SCC 126]. The Apex Court in that case, noted that while enacting Article 58 of 1963 Act, the legislature designedly had made a departure from the language of Article 120 of 1905 Act which provided the limitation of six years from the date when the right to sue accrues. The Apex Court held that if a suit is based on legal cause of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues and that successive violation of the right will not give rise to a fresh cause of action and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation, counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.