Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Limitation Act, 1973 – Arts. 58, 72 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Bar by limitation – Suit by the respondent for declaration, mandatory injunction and seeking direction to the appellants to complete the acquisition proceedings – Respondent’s case that road was constructed on respondent’s land, no compensation was paid and non-compliance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act – Trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation – Upheld by the first appellate court – Second appeal by the respondent – Allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Road in question on the land of the respondent was constructed in the year 1987; trees if any were damaged/removed in the year 1987; the retaining wall was constructed in the year 1987 and the suit filed in the year 2003 – Considering the said facts and circumstances when the trial court held that the suit was barred by limitation and when the same was upheld by the first appellate court, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of facts in exercise of powers u/s. 100 – High Court did not frame any substantial question of law on the limitation and/or the suit being barred by limitation – High Court has gone on general and broad principles – High Court did not at all consider the real facts, thus, the judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.