Supreme Court emphasizes evidence-based approach in limitation disputes, sets aside preliminary decisions.

The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' decisions to dismiss a recovery suit on limitation grounds, emphasizing that disputed facts surrounding limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The Court highlighted the need for evidence-based determination on the limitation issue, emphasizing the importance of factual disputes in legal issues. The judgment stressed that limitations should not be decided preliminarily under Order XIV Rule 2, directing the resolution of the limitation issue along with other matters at trial. The decision serves as a precedent for resolving similar disputes based on evidence rather than oral arguments alone.

---

---

Issues:
- Suit dismissal on the ground of limitation
- Interpretation of loan transactions vs. commission payments
- Application of Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC for determining limitation as a preliminary issue

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a suit for recovery against the respondent, claiming repayment of loans granted, while the respondent argued that the payments were commissions for real estate services. The trial court and High Court dismissed the suit based on limitation, citing the last payment date. The appellant contended that the loans were to be repaid within a year, as per the plaint, and argued for a trial based on evidence rather than oral arguments alone.

2. The defense denied the existence of loan transactions and highlighted the lack of a written agreement. The conflicting versions of the transactions necessitated evidence-based determination. The issue of limitation could not be isolated from the transaction nature, requiring evidence for resolution. The trial court's directive to address limitation orally was deemed irregular, as evidence should have been presented.

3. The Supreme Court referred to Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, stating that the issue of limitation, when disputed, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. Citing the Nusli Neville Wadia case, the Court emphasized that disputed facts surrounding limitation preclude its determination as a preliminary issue. As the limitation issue was not solely a question of law, the Court set aside the previous judgments and directed its resolution with other issues at trial.

4. The judgment allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for evidence-based determination on the limitation issue. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of factual disputes in determining legal issues and the inappropriateness of deciding limitations as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2. The case serves as a precedent for resolving similar disputes based on evidence rather than oral arguments alone.

---