Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri Bala & Co., Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 2023

The Supreme Court of India, in Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri Bala & Co. [Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 2023, decided January 8, 2025; 2025 INSC 42], delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in suits for specific performance.

Facts and Background
The dispute concerned a 5.05-acre portion of a 6.48-acre property known as Loch End in Kodaikanal, originally purchased by American missionaries in 1912 and transferred in 1975 to the Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association (IELCTA). Sri Bala & Co. (plaintiff/respondent) entered into an agreement in 1991 to purchase the property for ₹3.02 crore and paid an advance of ₹10 lakh. Despite partial possession, disputes arose over tenancy and other issues, delaying completion.

The plaintiff initially filed a suit for specific performance in 1993, which was rejected due to non-payment of court fees. A second suit was filed in 2007. The trial court and Madras High Court dismissed the suit on grounds including limitation and res judicata.

Legal Issues
Whether the second suit filed after rejection of the first plaint is barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

The applicability of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, which mandates rejection of a plaint if the suit is barred by law.

The effect of non-numbering and non-adjudication of the first suit on the principle of res judicata.

Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court held that the subsequent suit filed after the rejection of the earlier plaint is barred by limitation if filed beyond three years from the date of rejection, as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized that the limitation period for filing a fresh suit starts from the date of rejection of the earlier plaint.

The Court clarified that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot override the Limitation Act. Consequently, the plaint of the second suit must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if barred by limitation.

The Court set aside the decisions of the trial court and Madras High Court, which had dismissed the suit on other grounds, and allowed the appeal filed by IELCTA by holding the second suit barred by limitation.

Conclusion
This judgment reaffirms that:

A fresh suit filed after rejection of a previous plaint must be within the prescribed limitation period counted from the date of rejection.

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC mandates rejection of plaints barred by limitation.

Limitation laws take precedence over procedural provisions to ensure finality and prevent abuse of process.

The ruling provides clarity on filing suits for specific performance following dismissal of earlier suits.