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

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

The Supreme Court in this case ruled that all the ancillary reliefs which are related must also fail when the main relief is time-barred. The Gujarat High Court’s judgement was challenged, and the appeal was made in the Apex Court. The High Court had wrongly quashed the decision of the Trial Court to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Apex Court stated that it was the High Court’s mistake to continue on this case when it was clearly filed late. 

Brief details of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.

Name of the Case Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.
Case Number C.A. No.-005180-005180 – 2025
Dairy Number 20183/2024
Parties of the Case Appellant – Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr.  Respondent – Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.


Representative of the parties		 Appellant – Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal; AOR Anushree Prashit Kapadia; Advocates Shivangi Chawla, Shrutika Garg and Pranay BhardwajRespondent – AOR Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya; Advocate Bhadrish S. Raju, Dhanesh Patel and Sankalp Kumar
Equivalent Citations S.L.P. (C) No. 13459 of 2024
Type of the Case Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Court Supreme Court of India
Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)
Bench Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj MithalHon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Judgement Date  15-04-2025

Background of the dispute

A civil suit was filed in the Civil Court of Ahmedabad by Harsh Sanghvi (plaintiff). The suit was filed against 4 parties (3 daughters and one grandson of this deceased father). Harsh wanted the court to declare his father’s (Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi) will void. The will was made on 4th February 2014. While the Codicil was made on  20th September 2014. Harsh’s father died on 21st October 2014. The defendants in the case revealed that there was a will in the first week of November in 2014. 

On 21st November 2017, Harsh filed a suit which claimed that the caution of action arose on:

  1.  4th February 2014 – registration of the will was done
  2. 20th September 2014 – registration of the Codicil was done
  3. 21st October 2014 – when his father died

The applications were filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC by the defendants, where they sought the rejection of the plaint. They further argued that it was barred by limitation, as it has been more than 3 years since the day Harsh had knowledge of both the Codicil and the will. 

The Ahmedabad Civil Court accepted the application and also rejected the plaint. The court held that Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that a suit has to be filed within 3 years. The order of the Civil Court was reversed by the High Court and the suit was restored on 8th February 2024. The appellants have challenged the said judgment of the High Court in the Supreme Court. 

Legal provisions involved in this case

The two legal provisions involved in the case of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. are:

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Article 58 states that if a legal declaration is required, a case must be filed within the period of 3 years from the date they get the right to sue. For instance in this case the limitation period will be counted from the day on which Harsh got the information about the existence of the codicil and the will. 

Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

As per Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC states that a plaint can be rejected:

  • When a cause of action is not disclosed,
  • When the relief which is claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff on the order of the court to correct the valuation still does not do the same in a fixed time limit,
  • When despite the plaint being valued correctly, there is an error in paper stamping, and the court tells to do the same in the fixed period of out, but fails to do so,
  • The suit is barred by law.

The court will only give an extra fixed time period to correct the valuation of the claim or to provide the stamp paper if the court believes there are proper reasons for non compliance by the plaintiff because of some serious reason and not providing a second chance will be unfair to the plaintiff. 

Key issues before the court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.

The key issues in this case are:

  1. Did the plaintiff file the case too late?
  2. Whether the issue of limitation involves both facts and laws which have to be proved by giving evidence?
  3. Whether only a few parts of the request of the plaintiff can be rejected, while the remaining is allowed?

Submission by both sides in Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.

Grounds raised by petitioners

  • The petitioner argues that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 7(d) of CPC, 1908. 
  • The primary relief which is claimed is barred by limitation. 
  • It was also further contended that as the main relief is barred by limitation, all the ancillary reliefs will also not survive. 

Grounds raised by respondents

  • The lawyer of the respondent argued that the current case should not be dismissed this quickly.
  • The issue of the limitation here involves both factual and legal questions, and there is a need for a full trial and submission of evidence for the same. 
  • The representative further argued that even if the primary relief request was made after the time period was added, other requests were still valid and should have been heard and considered properly. 
  • The case was rejected without giving a fair chance, which violated the basic rules of justice. 

Judicial findings in Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.

Trial Court

The plaint was rejected on the basis of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by the City Civil Court. The pleading revealed that the cause of action arose in November (first week) of 2014, while the suit was filed on 21.11.2017. Hence, the 3-year limit was barred. 

High Court

The High Court reversed the order made by the City Civil Court. The High Court stated that a detailed and proper trial and evidence. It was also observed by the court that the plaintiff has made many requests, so if one request was not made in time cannot mean that the entire case should be dismissed by the court. 

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench stated that:

  1. The case in hand is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which states that only a three-year time period is given to file a case from the day the right arises. 
  2. The claims made by the plaintiff himself shows that the time to file the case ended in early November 2017, which shows it was clearly time-barred. 
  3. The delay was very obvious in nature; hence, there is no need to look at any further evidence in order to decide the limitation. 
  4. The court also rejected the argument of the plaintiff of requiring ‘full knowledge’. It was clarified that the limitation period starts from the day the cause of action arises first. 
  5. Since the main request was time-barred, all the other related requests were also not granted. 

Takeaways from the case

The Apex Court ruled that primary relief was time-barred and all other ancillary reliefs were not enforceable. The limitation period begins when the cause of action arises and not when there is full knowledge. There was an error made by the High Court in taking the decision and they ignored the legal requirements of Article 58. This case highlights the importance of filing a case promptly. Delays can bar justice! Timely action is very vital in civil cases. 

References

Categories

Related Posts

Linkedin-in