[2025:RJ-JP:47550] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12600/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through General Manager, Jaipur having its Head Office at Pariwahan Marg. C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Non-Claimant/Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Narangi Devi W/o Late Shri Aani Lal @ Bhuwanaram, aged about 57 years (Deceased) 2. Ramesh Kumar Dhanka S/o Late Shri Aani Lal Bhuwanaram, Aged About 37 Years, 3. Rakesh S/o Late Shri Aani Lal @ Bhuwanaram, Aged About 35 Years, 4. Jagdish S/o Late Shri Aani Lal @ Bhuwanaram, Aged About 33 Years, 5. Rampal @ Sagar S/o Late Shri Aani Lal @ Bhuwanaram, Aged About 31 Years, All R/o Vill. Ramchandpura, Teh. Sanganer, Post Vidam, Distt. Jaipur. --Claimants/Respondent 6. Gulab Chand S/o Shri Rampratap, R/o Amarsar, Police Station Shahpura, Distt Jaipur (Driver Of Bus No. RSB- 2036) 7. Sitaram S/o Phool Chand, R/o Chandwaji, Distt. Jaipur (Owner Of Bus No. RSB-2036) ----Non-Claimant/Respondents 8. Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur. --Performa/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Tiwari with Mr. Rohit Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 24/11/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:47550] (2 of 3) [CW-12600/2012] 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tribunal') whereby, the application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner-Corporation has been dismissed. 2. It is submitted that in the present case, the accident took place on 27.04.1980 whereas, the claim petition was filed after expiry of around 30 years. It is further submitted that as per the erstwhile provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the limitation for filing the claim petition was of six months therefore, the cause of action if any, accrued to the claimant only up to 26.10.1980 and thereafter, he had no right to invoke the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of filing the claim petition. However, the application filed by the petitioner- Corporation has been dismissed by the Tribunal overlooking the settled position of law and thus, the Tribunal has transgressed its power and jurisdiction in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Section 166 has been amended subsequently by the legislature and at the time, when claim petition was filed, there was no limitation prescribed under the Act for filing the claim petition in relation to an accident. He further submits that even otherwise, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claim of the respondents cannot be summarily rejected and question of limitation could be decided by framing specific issue and taking evidence in this regard therefore, learned Tribunal has committed no jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:47550] (3 of 3) [CW-12600/2012] 4. Heard and considered. 5. In the case of Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole & Ors. Vs. Rohit Enterprises & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (c) No. 16809/2025 decided on 17.11.2025), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that limitation is mixed question of law and fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot be a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-suiting the plaintiff. 6. Thus, it is a settled proposition of law that merely on the point of limitation normally the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot be entertained however, any objection with regard to limitation cannot be ignored by any Court/Tribunal/adjudicatory body. Such question can be considered by way of framing an issue. More so, in the light of facts of the present case, where the limitation period earlier prescribed has been diluted by way of amendment in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court deems it just and proper to maintain the order dated 14.06.2012 with direction to the Tribunal to frame specific issue with regard to question of limitation and to decide the same after taking evidence of both the sides. 7. Looking to the fact that the claim petition was filed in the year 2010, it is expected from learned Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously. 8. The instant civil writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J Neeru/61