New Delhi, 21 September 2026: The Supreme Court of India, in a Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 34086 of 2025, held that the power under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to try a qualifying issue "first" cannot be exercised once trial of the issues generally has already commenced.
The appeal arose from a suit filed on 10 June 2013 seeking a declaration that a Sale Deed dated 25 May 2005 was void, and recovery of possession. The plaintiff's case was that a General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Defendant No. 1 did not authorise him to settle terms of sale, rendering the subsequent conveyance to Defendant No. 2 fraudulent and void. All issues, including one on limitation, were framed on 8 July 2015, and the suit proceeded to evidence. The plaintiff completed his evidence, and the defendants had entered upon theirs when, on 17 September 2018, Defendant No. 2 moved an application seeking trial of the limitation issue as a preliminary issue. The Trial Court allowed this and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation on 3 November 2018; the First Appellate Court, on 29 January 2024, affirmed this but modified the disposal to one of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). The Kerala High Court, in second appeal, held the suit within limitation and remitted it for trial on merits by judgment dated 24 September 2025.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant (the purchaser under the Sale Deed) argued that the suit was, in substance, one for cancellation and thus barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, while the respondents (the plaintiff's legal heirs) argued that recovery of possession was the primary relief, attracting the twelve-year period under Article 65.
The Court, in an extensive analysis of the legislative history of Order XIV Rule 2, the concept of an "issue of law only," and the relationship between framing, trying, and determining an issue, held that the framing of all issues does not by itself preclude a court from later directing prior trial of a qualifying issue, but that once the court has embarked on trial of the issues generally, that power is exhausted. Since the limitation issue here had already entered a composite trial with the other issues by the time the application was moved in 2018, it could not be severed for preliminary adjudication. The Court accordingly clarified the Full Bench decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Prithvi Raj Jhingta v. Gopal Singh and its own decision in Sathyanath v. Sarojamani to this extent.
The orders of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court were set aside, the application seeking a preliminary issue was dismissed, and the suit was restored to the Trial Court to resume from the stage before that application was filed, with a request that it be decided within three months. The Court clarified that this did not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits.
Source:
Case Name: John Mathew v. Santha Paul & Ors.
Case Number: Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1020
Bench: Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli, Supreme Court of India (per Palli, J.)
Date: 21 September 2026