In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that if the primary relief sought in a civil suit is barred by limitation, any connected or ancillary reliefs also become unenforceable. The Court emphasized that such suits must be dismissed outright under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the verdict in the matter titled Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., dated April 15, 2025.

“Once the plaint or the suit in respect of the main relief stands barred by time, the other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down,” the Court stated.

Read Also:- SC Slams Maharashtra Police for 84-Year Illegal Flat Occupation, Sets Aside Bombay HC Judgment

Background of the Case

The case arose from a civil suit filed by Hitesh P. Sanghvi, who sought a declaration that the Will dated February 4, 2014, and Codicil dated September 20, 2014, allegedly executed by his late father Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, were null and void. He also sought a permanent injunction against his siblings from carrying out any transaction based on those documents.

The plaintiff acknowledged in the plaint that he came to know of these documents in the first week of November 2014, shortly after his father’s death on October 21, 2014.

However, the suit was filed only on November 21, 2017—exceeding the three-year limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

"The limitation of three years is counted from the date when the right to sue first accrues," the bench clarified.

The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, initially rejected the plaint, accepting the defendants' applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court found the suit to be filed beyond the statutory limitation period, observing that no separate evidence was necessary when the facts were evident on the face of the plaint.

Read Also:- Language Should Unite, Not Divide: Supreme Court Upholds Use of Urdu on Maharashtra Municipality Signboard

However, the Gujarat High Court, on appeal, reversed the trial court’s decision, reasoning that the limitation issue required evidence and that different reliefs sought in the plaint could survive independently.

The High Court ordered the suit to be restored and decided on merits.

The Supreme Court, however, strongly disagreed with the High Court’s view.

It held that:

• The plaintiff had clearly stated the dates when he became aware of the Will and Codicil.
• Based on his own averments, the right to sue first arose in November 2014.
• Filing the suit on November 21, 2017, was beyond the limitation period.
• Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, a court is bound to dismiss any suit instituted after the limitation period, even if limitation is not raised as a defense.

“It is obligatory upon the court to dismiss the suit if it is, on the face of it, barred by limitation,” the judgment stated.

Further, the Court observed that the injunction and other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were entirely dependent on the declaration that the Will and Codicil were invalid. Hence, once the main relief was time-barred, no dependent relief could stand independently.

Read Also:- SC Seeks Delhi Police's Response on Cremation of Missing Man as 'Unidentified' Despite Pending Complaint

The Court also criticized the High Court’s interpretation that the plaintiff may not have had “complete knowledge” of the documents. The Supreme Court dismissed this reasoning as fallacious, stressing that the limitation is calculated from the point when knowledge is first acquired, not when it is “complete.”

"The plaintiff never pleaded any later date of full knowledge; such an argument is purely an afterthought," the Court said.

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s order, thus rejecting the plaint as time-barred and unenforceable under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

“The High Court manifestly erred in law,” the Court concluded.

Also From Judgment: Supreme Court: Limitation Period Under Article 58 Begins When Cause of Action First Arises, Not on Full Knowledge

Case Title: NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA & ANR. VERSUS HITESH P. SANGHVI & ORS.