#Limitation Defence

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed supplemental evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 to reconcile conflicting Khasra numbers in revenue records, remanding the case for fresh adjudication on title and limitation. This clarifies that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when revenue documentation fails to reflect actual possession or transaction history, empowering litigants with registered deeds but flawed mutations.

Karnataka High Court reinforces the liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, permitting amendments to pleadings to challenge fraud-based decrees as null and void, provided the amendment does not cause prejudice and is not barred by limitation. The ruling clarifies that such amendments do not relate back to the original suit date, balancing procedural flexibility with substantive justice.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that when a public authority admits liability in its written statement, it cannot later invoke limitation as a defence in appeal - reinforcing the principle that the State must act with fairness and consistency. This sets a binding standard for all government entities in civil litigation, ensuring they cannot exploit procedural technicalities after conceding the merits.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that when identical notices to co-operative society employees have already been set aside by the Registrar on merit, denying a similar petitioner relief on limitation grounds violates equal protection and natural justice. This mandates the Registrar to adjudicate such grievances on substance, not procedure, reinforcing administrative fairness for all similarly situated members.