Summary
A recovery suit was dismissed as time-barred without evidence despite conflicting accounts of whether payments were loans or real estate commissions and a pleaded deferred repayment date. The Court held that limitation depended on disputed facts and could not be decided as a preliminary issue on arguments alone. The dismissal and appellate judgment were set aside, leaving limitation to be tried with the other issues.
Issues
- Whether limitation could be decided as a preliminary issue where the character of the transactions and repayment terms were disputed.
Provisions considered
- Order XIV Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A preliminary issue concerning a statutory bar must be an issue of law alone; limitation dependent on disputed facts required evidence at trial. (¶ 13-15)
Held
- The plaintiff pleaded that the loans were repayable within one year of the last instalment. The defendant denied loans and asserted commission payments. Whether the repayment plea was established and how limitation applied could not be separated from proof of the underlying transactions. (¶ 11-12)
- A limitation question resting on admitted facts may be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b). Where its resolution depends on investigation of disputed facts, it cannot be disposed of in that manner. (¶ 13-14)
- Here limitation was not a pure question of law. The trial court’s dismissal and the High Court judgment were set aside; limitation was to be decided with the other issues at trial. The Court did not finally hold the claim within time or establish the alleged loan liability. (¶ 15-16)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial court and High Court judgments set aside. Limitation to be decided with the other issues at trial.