SANKAR DASTIDAR versus SHRIMATI BANJULA DASTIDAR AND ANR.

SANKAR DASTIDAR versus SHRIMATI BANJULA DASTIDAR AND ANR.

The counter claim by Respondent No.1 for damages due to wrongful detention of her belongings is barred by limitation as per Article 91 of the Limitation Act, since the cause of action arose in 1987 but the counter claim was filed in 1992, beyond the prescribed three-year period. The wrong was not a continuing wrong and no fresh cause of action arose by inventory or other proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Sankar Dastidar; Respondent No. 1: Shrimati Banjula Dastidar; Respondent No. 2: Dipti Dasgupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Judgment and Order Dated 19.1.2005 of the High Court of Calcutta in F.a. No. 71 of 2002
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Counter Claim, Wrongful Detention of Movable Property, Damages
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Limitation Period Counter Claim Wrongful Detention of Movable Property Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sankar Dastidar

Appellant

Shrimati Banjula Dastidar

Respondent No. 1

Dipti Dasgupta

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Judgment and Order Dated 19.1.2005 of the High Court of Calcutta in F.a. No. 71 of 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the period of limitation for raising a counter claim for wrongful detention of goods?
  2. 2 Is the counter claim for damages filed by Respondent No.1 barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi

The counter claim by Respondent No.1 for damages due to wrongful detention of her belongings is barred by limitation as per Article 91 of the Limitation Act, since the cause of action arose in 1987 but the counter claim was filed in 1992, beyond the prescribed three-year period. The wrong was not a continuing wrong and no fresh cause of action arose by inventory or other proceedings.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • There is no order as to costs.