Knowledge of a document triggers limitation; there's no scope for “partial” or “incomplete” knowledge to extend the limitation period. Courts must strictly apply Section 3 of the Limitation Act regardless of defenses raised held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors

Supreme Court of India: Key Judgment Overview

Case Title:

Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 485
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal & Hon’ble Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Date of Judgment: April 15, 2025
Bench: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Provision Involved: Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963

---

📜 Background of the Case

• Plaintiff: Hitesh P. Sanghvi, son of the deceased Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi.

• Defendants: His three sisters and one nephew.

• Cause of Action: The plaintiff sought to declare a Will (dated 04.02.2014) and a Codicil (dated 20.09.2014) allegedly executed by his late father as null and void, claiming they were revealed to him for the first time in November 2014.

• Suit Filed: 21.11.2017, more than 3 years after acquiring knowledge of the documents.

---

⚖️ Trial and High Court Findings

• Trial Court (City Civil Court, Ahmedabad):
  Rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for being barred by limitation, applying Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

• High Court (Gujarat):
  Reversed the trial court's decision, holding that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and parties should be allowed to adduce evidence.

---

🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Observations & Findings

1. Limitation Under Article 58

• Article 58 of the Limitation Act applies for suits seeking declarations (not covered under Articles 56 or 57).

• Limitation is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

2. Plaintiff's Own Admissions

• The plaintiff explicitly stated in the plaint that he became aware of the Will and Codicil in November 2014.

• Thus, the limitation expired by November 2017, but the suit was filed on 21.11.2017 — after the limitation period, even if calculated most generously.

3. Core Relief Controls the Suit

• The primary relief was to declare the Will and Codicil void.

• The relief of injunction was consequential and dependent upon success in the primary relief.

• If the main relief is barred by limitation, the entire plaint is barred.

4. Limitation is Not a Mixed Question in This Case

• Where the bar of limitation is apparent from the face of the plaint, no evidence is needed.

• The concept of "knowledge" and "full knowledge" was rejected as fallacious in this context.

5. Mandatory Nature of Section 3 of the Limitation Act

• Even if limitation is not pleaded as a defense, courts are bound to dismiss a suit barred by limitation.

---

🧾 Law Laid Down by the Supreme Court

• If the plaint itself admits dates that clearly show the suit is barred by limitation, it must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

• Relief of injunction dependent on a time-barred declaration cannot save the plaint.

• Knowledge of a document triggers limitation; there's no scope for “partial” or “incomplete” knowledge to extend the limitation period.

• Courts must strictly apply Section 3 of the Limitation Act regardless of defenses raised.

---

🖊️ Conclusion

This judgment is a clear reiteration of the principle that litigation must come to an end within prescribed time limits, ensuring legal certainty and discouraging stale claims. The Supreme Court has rightly emphasized that once limitation begins, especially when admitted in pleadings, judicial discretion cannot override statutory mandates.