BALAJI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, REP. BY THEIR PARTNER, HEMANT RADHAKRISHNA SAPALE., v. LIRA SIRAJ SHAIKH AND 34 ORS.,
Rejection of Plaint - Limitation Period for Fresh Suits Filed Under Order VII Rule 13 Following Dismissal for Non-Registration of Partnership Firm.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:366-DB
Decision Date: 27-02-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Indian Partnership Act, 1932; The Limitation Act, 1963; Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Facts: The Appellant, an unregistered partnership firm, entered into an agreement for sale and a Memorandum of Understanding in 1990 and 1991 regarding a property in Margao, Goa. In August 1993, the firm instituted Special Civil Suit No. 246/1993/A for specific performance. However, because the firm was unregistered at the time of filing, the trial court dismissed the suit in 1999 as not maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. This dismissal was upheld by the High Court in 2005. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) in 2012 but left questions of law open. Subsequently, the firm, now registered, filed a fresh suit (Special Civil Suit No. 54/2012/II) on the same cause of action. The Respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing the suit was barred by limitation.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court rejected the plaint, holding the suit was barred by limitation. The Appellant challenged this rejection before the High Court of Bombay at Goa via the present First Appeal.
- Issue: Whether a subsequent suit filed by a registered partnership firm is maintainable when the previous suit on the same cause of action was dismissed for non-registration, and whether the time consumed in the previous litigation can be excluded for calculating the limitation period.
- Holding: No, the suit is barred by limitation. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the plaint.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the cause of action arose in 1993 when legal notices were issued. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period is three years. While Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC allows for a fresh suit after a plaint is rejected, such a suit must still be filed within the original period of limitation. The Court observed that the Appellant could have amended the original suit after registering in September 1993 or filed a fresh suit before the limitation expired in 1996. The dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court does not create a "fresh" cause of action. Relying on "Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri Bala & Co.", the Court held that once time begins to run, it runs continuously, and the right to sue stood extinguished long before the 2012 suit.
🔒 For Members Only