Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Rev. Pet.133/18 in Suit 1496/17 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
REVIEW PETITION NO.133 of 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1496 of 2017
Smt. Asha Shantaram More ..Applicant
V/s.
Bechuram Laxmiprasad Patwa and ors. ..Respondents
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V. GANEDIWALA
Dated : 14th August, 2018
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr. Rajeev Matkar @ adv. Pallavi Gandhi for applicant.
Advocate Mr. V. C. Singh for respondents.
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant/plaintiff considering herself aggrieved by the
order of this court dated 20th February, 2018 in Notice of Motion
no.2961/17 whereby this court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11
(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has filed the present Review Petition.
2. The plaintiff's suit is for declaration to declare the documents
i.e. Transfer Deed, Affidavit and Power of Attorney, all dated 07th July,
2000, as null and void. This court, from the averments made in the plaint,
found that the suit is barred by limitation. From the averments in the
plaint itself, the impugned documents were in the knowledge of the
plaintiff on 16th April, 2013 i.e. during the pendency of the dispute before
the Cooperative Court. The present suit is filed on 26 th April, 2017, i.e.
after 4 years, which is beyond the period of limitation. The
applicant/plaintiff states that the issue of limitation, being a mixed
question of law and facts, is to be decided on the basis of evidence during
-- 1 of 3 --
Rev. Pet.133/18 in Suit 1496/17 2
the trial. The applicant states that it is a mistake/error apparent on the
face of the record, committed by this court. The learned counsel for the
applicant mainly argued on the point as to how the impugned order is
erroneous.
3. I have considered the submissions on behalf of both the
parties. The learned counsel for the defendant strongly opposed the
petition on the ground of the considerations to decide the Review Petition
under Order 47 Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure. I have perused the
impugned order carefully. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the
period of limitation for the suit to cancel or set aside an instrument is 3
years when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree
cancelled or set aside first becomes known to him.
4. The present suit is to cancel/set aside the impugned
documents as stated aforesaid. The averments made in the plaint itself
show that the impugned documents were in the knowledge of the plaintiff,
at least since 16th April, 2013. Hence, the suit filed beyond the period of
limitation of 3 years is barred. And therefore, there is no apparent
error/mistake on the face of the record. In such circumstances, I pass the
following order:
ORDER
1) Review Petition No.133/2018 stands rejected.
14/08/2018 (P.V. GANEDIWALA)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 14/08/2018
Transcribed on : 14/08/2018
Signed by HHPJ on : 14/08/2018
-- 2 of 3 --
Rev. Pet.133/18 in Suit 1496/17 3
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Varsha D. Chowdhri
Upload date and time : 14th August, 2018 (At 11.30 a.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs. P. V. GANEDIWALA (C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 14th August, 2018
Order signed by P.O. on 14th August, 2018
Order uploaded on 14th August, 2018
-- 3 of 3 --