Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Datt Real Infra Private Limited ... vs National Council F Ymcas Of India A ... on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26218
1 RP-285-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 285 of 2024
M/S DATT REAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY A
REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND
OTHERS
Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YMCAS OF INDIA A SOCIETY
REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES RETISTRATION ACT 1980
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Yash Soni and
Shri Arpit Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Makbool Khan, Advocate with Shri Puneet Jaiswal - Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
Present review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for
reviewing the order dated 13.2.2024 passed in First Appeal No.1690/2023 -
National Council of YMCAS Vs. M/s Datt Real Infra and others.
2. Brief facts of the case in narrow compass are that respondent
plaintiff had filed a civil suit for declaration of sale agreement dated
28.04.2016 as null and void, possession, compensation and permanent
injunction, which was registered as R.C.S.A.No.180/2023. Consequently,
relief of possession, compensation and permanent injunction has been
sought.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26218
2 RP-285-2024
3. An application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC for disposal of the
suit being barred by law of limitation has been filed by the defendants. The
respondent/plaintiff had filed reply to the application. The trial Court vide
order dated 13.7.2023 allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of
CPC thereby dismissing the suit being time barred. The trial Court in para 27
of the order dated 13.7.2023 has held that from bare perusal of the cause of
action pleaded, the suit ought to have been filed up to 18.10.2022 whereas
the suit has been filed on 15.2.2023 and, therefore, was barred by time. The
said order dated 13.7.2023 passed in R.C.S.A.No.180/2023 has been
challenged in First Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under section 96 of
the CPC read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC. The first appeal was heard by this
Court and the judgment has been pronounced on 13.2.2024 by setting aside
the order dated 13.7.2023 by directing the trial Court to restore the civil suit
and decide the suit as per law.
4. While advancing arguments in the review petition, learned counsel
for the petitioner has invited attention of this court in paras 22, 23 and 29 of
the impugned judgment under review which is quoted hereinbelow :-
"22. In the light of findings of Trial Court that limitation begins
from 18.10.2019 and as per Article 58 of the Schedule appended to
the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is 3 years and in the
light of para-5.1 of Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 2022
Live Law (SC) 31, after exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 to
28.02.2022, the balance period of limitation as on 03.10.2021 is 1 year
0 month and 14 days on counting from 18.10.2019 and as per para-5.2
of Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 2022 Live Law (SC)
31, this balance period of limitation become available from 01.03.2022.
Accordingly, the limitation is available upto 15.03.2023. So the ground
raised through para-22 of the Annexure-A3 that plaintiff is not entitled
for any benefit arising out of in Re: Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation, 2022 Live Law (SC) 31 is not sound.
23. Accordingly, findings of Trial Court recorded in para Nos.27 and
30 of the impugned order without taking into consideration the suo
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26218
3 RP-285-2024
moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation is not correct.
.......
29. In light of conclusion in para Nos.22 and 23 of the judgment,
this appeal is allowed and in impugned order dated 13.07.2023 in RCS
No.A180/2023 by the Trial Court is set aside
5. It is submitted that the issue of limitation has been skipped for
consideration by this Court as on bare perusal of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 2022
Live Law (SC) 31, the period has come to an end on 28.2.2022 and thus this
Court has wrongly calculated the period, as three years of limitation as per
Article 58 of Schedule appended to the Limitation Act 1963 would come to
an end on 17.10.2022 and prayed that the judgment be reviewed to the extent
that such finding of limitation arrived at by the appellate court deserves to be
reviewed, as even if it is considered that the limitation is mixed question of
fact and law, the matter should have been remanded back to the trial Court to
decide the issue of limitation by taking evidence. To buttress his contention,
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20
SCC 753, Inderchand Jain V. Motilal (2009) 14 SCC 663 and Board of
Control for Cricket in India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005)4 SCC 741.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
parties are trying to compromise the matter and submitted that the issue of
limitation may be directed to be decided by the learned civil Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Kumarakurubaran Vs.
P.Narayanan & Ors. vide order dated 29.4.2025 passed in S.L.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26218
4 RP-285-2024
(C).No.2549/2021 while dealing with the question of Order 7 Rule 11(d) in
cases of suit barred by limitation has held as under :-
"13. In this backdrop, the approach of the High Court in reversing the
wellreasoned order of the trial Court warrants interference. The trial
Court had rightly held that the issue of limitation necessitated
adjudication upon evidence, particularly in view of the appellant's
assertion that the Power of Attorney executed by him did not confer any
authority upon his father to alienate the suit
property and that the impugned transaction came to his knowledge only
at a much later point in time. In such circumstances, the determination
of limitation involved disputed questions of fact that could not be
summarily decided without the benefit of trial. The High Court,
however, proceeded to reject the plaint solely on a prima facie
assumption that the suit was barred by limitation, without undertaking
any examination as to whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge
was demonstrably false or inherently improbable in light of the record.
In the opinion of this Court, such an approach amounts to an error of
law and constitutes a misapplication of the well-established principles
governing the exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. For the
same reasons, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents are inapplicable, being factually distinguishable.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghbendra Bose and others
Vs. Sunil Krishna Ghose and others, reported in (2005)12 SCC 309 has held
that the superior court is precluded from giving observations on merits when
it remands the case.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal vs.
Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that if the
judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and
if the error is self evident, review is permissible and in such case, the Court
can exercise the review jurisdiction.
11. Similarly, in the case of Board of Control For Cricket, India and
another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others (2005) 4 SCC 741, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under :-
"90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would
include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26218
5 RP-285-2024
for a review of the order. An application for review would also
be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What
would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts
and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in
Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a
misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate.
An application for review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit".
12. A Division Bench of this Court also in the case of Madhyanchal
Gramin Bank v. Laxman Lal Ojha, 2014 Supreme (MP) 99 = 2014(1)
MPWN 80, has held as under :-
"10. In AIR 1981 AP 232 (Y. Venkannachowdary v. The
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General),
Hyderabad District and others), the High Court opined
that if certain provision was not brought to the notice of
the Court when appeal was argued, owing to the mistake
of counsel, it may amount to error apparent on the face
of the record. The apex Court in (2005) 13 SCC 289
(Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar
Islands and others) opined that the scope of review is
very wide. 11. In view of aforesaid judgments, it is clear
that review can be entertained even if the point is not
argued before the Court provided it amounts to error
apparent on the face of the record. In view of Promotion
Rules, it is necessary to examine the contention of the
employer/petitioner whether the direction of writ Court is
in consonance with the Promotion Rules."
13. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment under
review does not call for interference as the finding arrived at by this Court in
the judgment under review is on merits and as per the settled principles of
law and in view of the law enunciated by Hon. Apex Court, cannot be
interfered with under review jurisdiction as it does not contain error apparent
on the face of record. However, on perusal of para 22 of the impugned
judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court while giving
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26218
6 RP-285-2024
finding on limitation ought to have remanded back the matter to the trial
Court to decide on its facts and law by giving opportunity to the parties to
adduce evidence because if the finding of para 22 is not touched under
review then the party taking ground of dismissal of suit on the ground of
limitation shall not have an opportunity to make averments and lead
evidence. Thus, review petition is disposed of by recalling the findings in
para 22 and 23 of the impugned judgment with a direction to the trial Court
to decide the issue of limitation on its own merits on the basis of record and
evidence led by the parties at its appropriate stage.
14. This order shall be read conjointly with the impugned judgment
dated 13.2.2024 passed in First Appeal No.1690/2023.
15. A copy of this order be placed in the record of F.A.No.1690/2023.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
HS
