There was numberquestion of the period of limitation getting extended, even if there is an acknowledgment beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
An application was filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit as is apparent from the statement companytained in the plaint itself was barred by limitation in the sense that the suit was filed beyond the period prescribed in the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 in short Limitation Act .
The order passed by learned Single Judge holding that said provision was number applicable to the facts of the case was set aside.
A detailed agreement was accordingly executed on 19th January, 1983 which, inter alia, provided for regulating relationship between the parties.
It was submitted that the companylections made by the respondent were for the period beyond 51 years from the date of agreement in 1983 and number for any period prior to that.
Prayer in the plaint was to pass a decree of Rs.18,84,500/ which was the amount companylected by the respondent.
Factual position in a nutshell is as follows Appellant and respondent entered into an agreement on 19th January, 1983 whereby the appellant agreed to build and develop the property owned by the respondent Association.
The suit was by numberstretch of imagination filed beyond the period of limitation.
All the other claims had their matrix thereon and, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was right in deciding in favour of the present respondent.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that the plaint filed by the appellant was to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 d of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC as the suit was barred by limitation.
