Throw Ball Federation Of India vs Uoi
2012 Latest Caselaw 4737 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                Judgment reserved on: 07.08.2012
                                                 Judgment pronounced on: 13.08.2012

+      CS(OS) 844/2010 & IA No.20093/2011 (u/Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

THROW BALL FEDERATION OF INDIA                                         ..... Plaintiff

                                              versus

UOI                                                                    ..... Defendant

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff       :      Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa
For the Defendant no.3  :      Mr. Sudhir Nagar

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

IA No.20093/2011 (u/Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

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 federation‟s 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:

"a. To make a decree of declaration that the Plaintiff Federation is the true authentic apex „Throw Ball Federation‟ and the Defendant no.3 is a sham organization.

b. To make a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff Federation and against the Defendants no.1 and No.2, directing Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Defendant no.2) to recognize the Plaintiff Federation as the true authentic „Throw Ball Federation‟. c. To make a decree of prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff Federation and against the Defendant no.3 Federation restraining Defendant no.3 Federation from using the name „Throw Ball Federation of India‟ and organizing sports events, tournaments, tours, seeking government grants or for whatsoever purpose maybe."

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. It is settled proposition of law that while considering an application under Order

VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, the Court can take into consideration only the

averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. Neither the

defence taken in the written statement nor the documents filed by the defendant can be

looked into at this stage. It is also a settled proposition of law that the truthfulness or

otherwise of the averments cannot be examined while considering such an application.

4. Article 50 to 58 of the Limitation Act prescribe the period of limitation for the

suits relating to declaration. Article 56 and 57 pertains to specific declaration and do not

apply to the case before this Court. Article 58, which applies to the relief of declaration

claimed in the suit prescribes the period of limitation of three years starting from the date

when the right to sue first accrues.

5. 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.

6. The plaintiff‟s own case is that defendant no.3 society was registered with

Registrar of Societies of Bangalore on 13.4.1989. The grievance of the plaintiff in

nutshell is that the Government of India has discarded the recognition granted to it and

recognized defendant no.3 „Throw Ball Federation of India‟. The plaint does not disclose

as to when the plaintiff came to know of recognition of defendant no.3 by the

Government of India. However, the documents filed with the plaint clearly show that the

plaintiff had come to know, prior to 11.01.2003, that Mr. T. Ramanna had been able to

get defendant no.3 recognized from Government of India. Vide letter dated 11.01.2003

sent to Executive Director (Dean), Sports Authority of India, which is a document filed

with the plaint, the plaintiff, inter alia, stated as under:

"23. In the meantime, Mr. T. Ramanna using ambiguous means established himself as Secretary of TFI in the ministry.

24. After getting the news we lodged a protest in the Ministry of Sports.

Kindly do justice by correcting the address of our Throwball Federation of India, as recognized by Indian Olympic Association. The same has to be in the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Youth Affairs & Sports Authority, headed by Mr. Bala Bachan as President of TFI and Mr. Kamal Goswami Hony. Secretary General of TFI, 832/1st Mahaveer Nagar, Kota-324005, Rajasthan.

Kindly do justice by correcting the address of our Throwball Federation of India, as recognized by Indian Olympic Association. The same has to be in the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Deptt. of Youth Affairs & Sports Authority, headed by Mr Bala Bachan as President of TFI and Mr Kamal Goswami Hony. Secretary General of TFI, 832/1st Mahaveer Nagar, Kota-324005, Rajasthan."

7. Vide letter dated 5.9.2005 written to the Sports Secretary, Ministry of Youth

Welfare and Sports, Government of India, which again is a document filed with the

plaint, the plaintiff, inter alia, stated as under:

"5. By preparing falls paper and documents, Mr. Ramanna declared himself as Secretary of Throwball Federation of India.

28. In the meantime, Mr. T. Ramanna using ambiguous means established himself as Secretary of TFI in the Ministry.

29. After getting the news we lodged a protest in the Ministry of Sports.

Kindly do justice by correcting the address of our Throwball Federation of India, as recognized by Indian Olympic Association. The same has to be in the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Deptt. of Youth Affairs & Sports Authority, headed by Mr Bala Bachan as President of TFI and Mr Kamal Goswami Hony. Secretary General of TFI, 832/1st Mahaveer Nagar, Kota- 324005, Rajasthan."

8. Since the above document clearly disclose knowledge of the plaintiff with respect

to the recognition of defendant no.3 by Government of India, Ministry of Sports and

Youth Affairs, the right to sue, the declaration claimed by the plaintiff had, for the first

time, accrued sometime prior to 11.01.2003. The suit having been filed on 23.3.2010 is,

therefore, clearly barred by limitation.

9. As regards the relief of mandatory injunction, the right to sue accrued to the

plaintiff when it came to know that the Government of India had recognized defendant

no.3 as „Throw Ball Federation of India‟, in place of the plaintiff society. As regards

relief of prohibitory injunction, restraining defendant no.2 from using „Throw Ball

Federation of India and organizing the sports events, tournaments etc, it is the plaintiff‟s

own case in the plaint that on discovering unscrupulous activities of Mr. T. Ramanna, it

had filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Sub Judge, First Class being

Suit No.292/1989 seeking permanently restraining the defendant no.3 from organizing

any tournament in India in the name of „Throw Ball Federation of India. Therefore, the

right to sue, to claim this relief had accrued to the plaintiff prior to the filing of the civil

suit in the year 1989. This relief, as claimed by the plaintiff, therefore, is barred by

limitation.

10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the plaint is rejected. The suit as well as the IA

stand disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to

costs.

V.K.JAIN, J

AUGUST 13 , 2012 Rd/bg