Introduction

In the latest 2025 ruling by the Supreme Court of India, the focus on the time limits within civil disputes, especially declaratory action concerning Wills and Codicils, was revisited. The case Mehta & Anr. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. places acute focus on compliance with Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the scrutiny around when a plaint is rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

Suffice to say, all actors on the litigation stage must pay close attention to the risk of being placed outside legally defined timeframes for exercising rights.

Background of the Case

The dispute began in the Sanghvi family following the death of Pramod Kesurdas Sanghvi in October 2014. One of his heirs, Hitesh P. Sanghvi, filed a civil suit in 2017 at the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, seeking a declaration to nullify a registered Will (dated 04.02.2014) and Codicil (dated 20.09.2014).

The plaintiff also requested a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, including his sisters and nephew, from exercising any authority under the Will or Codicil.

However, the defendants challenged the suit on the grounds of limitation, triggering a legal battle that passed through the High Court and reached the Supreme Court.

Legal Problem: Limitation Under Article 58 and Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11

The central procedural issue was:

Was the suit filed within the timeframe under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
If not, should the plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC due to being time-barred based on the face of the pleadings?

Explanation of Article 58 of the Limitation Act

Article 58 governs suits seeking a declaration (excluding those regarding adoption or forgery). It provides a three-year limitation from the date the right to sue first accrues. In essence, declaratory reliefs must be sought at the earliest point when the claimant becomes aware of the issue prompting the legal action.

Divergent Strategies in Trial Court and High Court Decisions

The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad initially dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff himself admitted in his pleadings that he became aware of the Will and Codicil in early November 2014, yet filed the suit only on 21.11.2017—several weeks beyond the three-year limitation period.

Brief Synopsis of Arguments Forwarded Before the High Court

The Gujarat High Court reversed this decision, reasoning that:

Issues surrounding limitation could require evidence not available at the early stage.
Even if the declaratory relief was time-barred, consequential reliefs (such as injunctions) could still hold.

This broader interpretation led to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Defining Legal Timeframes

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the trial court’s decision to reject the plaint.

Key Findings:

Pleadings govern the outcome: The plaintiff’s own statements made it evident that no further evidence was needed—the suit was time-barred.
“Knowledge” vs. “full knowledge” distinction dismissed: The Court called this argument a fallacy, holding that legal timelines do not wait for subjective completeness of awareness.
Consequential reliefs can't survive independently: The permanent injunction was directly dependent on the success of the declaratory relief.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act: Courts must dismiss time-barred suits even if the defendant does not raise the issue.

Other Consequences from the Judgment

This ruling offers valuable guidance for litigants and legal practitioners:

Detail in pleadings is crucial: Particularly in suits challenging dated documents like Wills.
Limitations are enforceable without defence: Courts can act even without the limitation being raised by the opposing party.
Time-bound justice: Unreasonable delays in filing declaratory suits will not be tolerated.

Conclusion

Nikhila Divyang Mehta vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi is a landmark case in understanding how courts enforce time limits under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Article 58 of the Limitation Act. It reinforces the need for plaintiffs to act swiftly, especially when dealing with testamentary documents.

For litigators, this judgment serves as a call to not only draft arguments thoughtfully, but also file them within time. A well-drafted petition loses all value if it’s out of time.

Keywords:

Order VII Rule 11 CPC explained
Article 58 Limitation Act case law
Rejection of plaint limitation
Civil suit limitation period India
Supreme Court judgment 2025 civil procedure
Declaratory relief and limitation
Time-barred suits under CPC

Disclaimer

The information contained in this document is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. No part of this document should be relied upon or used as a substitute for consultation with qualified legal professionals. Legal Parihar expressly disclaims any and all liability for any loss, damage, or harm arising from reliance on the information contained herein, whether due to errors, omissions, negligence, or any other cause.