MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA Vs. SATPAL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby application under Section 3 of the Limitation Act read with Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code") and Section 151 of the Code, moved by the petitioner-defendant for rejection/dismissal of the plaint has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit is barred by limitation as it has been admitted by the respondent in para 10 of plaint and in application under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Act") that earlier suit titled 'S.P. Puri vs. Rajinder Kapoor and others', was filed by the respondent seeking the relief of permanent injunction with respect to same subject matter. The cause of action for declaration sought in present suit was available to respondent at the time of filing earlier suit. Since the present suit is filed after six and half years of filing of previous suit, the same is barred by limitation. The learned counsel has further contended that once a suit was earlier filed on same subject matter, the respondent-plaintiff was required to raise all the pleas in that suit and it cannot take pleas in parts by filing successive suits. The principle of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code and the principle of Section 11 of the Code apply to the present suit. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

(3.) I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.