Delhi District Court
Bank Of Baroda vs Rajesh Bhatia on 1 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.241/2021
CNR No.DLNW01-002332-2021
BANK OF BARODA
Having Its Branch Office At-
Branch At Office 4th Floor,
Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi-110008.
......Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Rajesh Bhatia,
S/o Sh. Ram Bhatia,
R/o AU/56, First Floor,
Pitampura, Delhi-110088.
Also At:
R/o 156, PKT-25, Sec-24,
Rohini New Delhi-110085.
R/o R.K. Enterprises,
House No.-17, Pocket-5, Sector-24,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
R/o 17, Pocket-5, 3rd Floor, Sector-24,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
...... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.3,25,717/- (RUPEES THREE
LAKHS TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN ONLY), ALONG WITH FUTURE AND
PENDENTELITE INTEREST.
Date of institution of suit : 19.03.2021
Date of hearing of final argument : 30.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 01.09.2025
Digitally signed
CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia PREETI by PREETI
AGRAWAL Page 1/17
AGRAWAL GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01
17:18:55 +0530
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the suit of plaintiff (Ex-parte) for recovery of Rs.3,25,717/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen Only) alongwith interest pendentelite and future @12.50%, from the date of filing of the suit, till its realization. Plaintiff has also prayed for award of costs of the Suit in its favour.
2. The concise facts of the case are being crystalised herein. As per the averments, plaintiff bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its head office at Mandvi, Baroda (Gujarat) 390006 and branch office at 4th Floor, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. The present suit for recovery was filed by Mr. Amit Gupta, who was duly authorized representative of the plaintiff bank and stated to be empowered to sign, institute and prosecute the suit and do all such acts and deeds on behalf of the plaintiff Bank. The plaintiff Bank has, however, later substituted its Authorised Representative, as prayed and allowed vide orders of the Court dated 27.02.2024. Accordingly, Sh. Elis Gupta was substituted as Authorized Representative of the plaintiff-Bank.
3. Initially, the Suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC. However, a fixed loan account was advanced to the defendant but Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL GUPTA Date:
Page 2/17GUPTA 2025.09.01 17:19:02 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 annexure P-9, which is statement of account, shows that defendant had made some payments also. Ld. predecessor observed that he would have treated that statement of account as fixed amount, if it had been acknowledged and signed by the defendant also. In the absence of the same, the was treated as Ordinary Commercial Suit.
4. Summary of the averments in the plaint as stated are that the defendant in the year 2011, applied for grant of Car Loan, which was sanctioned on 17.03.2011 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @12.50%. The car against which the loan was granted was hypothecated with particulars of the vehicle bearing Registration No.DL10CB0937, Make Chevrolet Beat, 1.2 LS, Engine No.B12D1436150KC3 / Chassis No.MA6BF482ABT043610. Defendant executed the loan application and loan related documents against the Car Loan. After which the plaintiff bank disbursed the Car Loan vide A/c No.36290600000001. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant acknowledged his liability vide letter of acknowledgment of debt dated 02.01.2017, for a sum of Rs.1,87,558/-. As per loan agreement between the parties, the said Car Loan was repayable in 84 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.6,504/- per month w.e.f 20.04.2011. The defendant failed to adhere to the norms of the sanction and failed to pay the regular equated monthly installments against the Loan account, the account of the defendant was declared NPA on 23.02.2016. It is further averred that despite repeated requests and through various communications and also visits, defendant did not make the Digitally signed by CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia PREETI PREETI Page 3/17 AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 GUPTA 17:19:06 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 payment or regularize the Car Loan Account and that as on 29.02.2020, a sum of Rs.3,25,717/- is due and recoverable from the defendant against the Car Loan along with interest @12.50% per annum.
5. The Cause of Action to file the present Suit is stated to have arisen for the first time when the defendant executed the loan sanction documents. It further arose when the plaintiff bank had made various correspondences to pay the interest to the plaintiff bank, it further arose when legal notice dated 15.07.2020 was issued. It further arose on 23.02.2016, when the account was declared NPA. It further arose on 02.01.2017, when the defendant executed the acknowledgment of debt. Plaintiff bank claims that cause of action is still continuing in its favour, as defendant has failed to make any further payment, despite Demand Notice. Hence, the present Suit.
6. Summons for settlement of Issues, in respect of the present Suit were sent to the defendants, which were received back unserved with the report "no such person" and the registered post were received back with the same report " no such person". On an application for substituted service on behalf of plaintiff bank, summons were issued upon the defendant by way of publication, which were duly published in the newspaper Veer Arjun on 12.07.2022. accordingly, defendant has been duly served, as per law, as on 12.07.2022. Defendants failed to appear before the Court Digitally signed by CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia PREETI PREETI Page 4/17 AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 GUPTA 17:19:09 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 despite due service, as per law and accordingly, were proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 28.11.2022.
7. Plaintiff Bank in support of its case examined Sh. Elis Gupta, who is its Senior Branch Manager / Authorized Representative, as PW1. The witness has reiterated the contents of the plaint 'On Oath' and has deposed that he is duly authorized, empowered and competent to sign and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the plaintiff Bank, to institute the suit & prosecute the suit and to do all acts on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank. Copy of Authority Letter is Ex.PW1/1(OSR). PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at Point A and Point B.
8. PW1 / Mr. Elis Gupta further deposed and tendered the following documents in evidence :-
1. Copy of General Power Attorney dated. 14.07.2023 executed in my favour Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR).
2. General Loan Agreement is Ex.PW1/2 (Colly.)
3. Letter of undertaking dated 17.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Letter of Installment with Acceleration Clause is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Letter of Acknowledgement of debt dated 02.01.2017 is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 17.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/6.
7. Declaration cum Undertaking Authority dated 17.03.2021 is Ex.PW1/7.
8. General Form of Guarantee is Ex.PW1/8.
9. Accounts Statement is Ex.PW1/9.
10. Legal Notice dated 13.07.2020 alongwith postal Digitally signed CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia PREETI by PREETI AGRAWAL Page 5/17 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 17:19:13 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 receipt is Ex.PW1/10 (Colly).
9. PW-1 as sole plaintiff witness has further deposed that plaintiff repeatedly requested defendant to make the payment of outstanding balance of Rs.3,25,717/-, but the defendant failed to clear the dues. It is further deposed that plaintiff pursued Pre- Institution Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, by way of filing an application for pre-institution mediation as on 28.12.2020. However, the defendant failed to participate in the settlement process. As a result, a Non-Starter Report was issued on 02.02.2021 by DLSA, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, plaintiff was constrained to file the present Suit for Recovery of Rs.3,25,717/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realization with costs of the Suit.
10. The Plaintiff bank did not examine any other witness and vide statement dated 27.02.2024, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
11. I have heard Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire record including the pleadings, documents and oral testimony of PW1 Sh. Elis Gupta on record. As the defendants have remained ex-parte, and have not cross-examined the sole plaintiff witness PW-1, the Court shall consider the testimony of witness and the documents, as they exist being un-rebutted and un- challanged.
Digitally signedPREETI by PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL GUPTA Page 6/17 GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 17:19:17 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025
12. At the outset, Court shall now examine the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As per facts of the present case, the address(es) of Defendant are "(1) 156, PKT-25, Sec-24, Rohini New Delhi-110085, (2) R.K. Enterprises, House No.-17, Pocket-5, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085 and (3) 17, Pocket-5, 3rd Floor, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085", the address(es) are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Jurisdiction has been invoked in terms of Section 20(a) of CPC, which clearly provides that a Court within whose local limits the defendant resides/or carries on business, at the time of commencement of the Suit and is accordingly, filed before this Court. In these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has been able to prove that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
13. The onus to prove the averments and claim of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff, who has to discharge the burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden laid upon it successfully, if the plaintiff is able to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. It is the law of land as re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa (supra) was pleased to uphold that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely lies Digitally signed CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia PREETI by PREETI AGRAWAL Page 7/17 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 17:19:21 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
14. The testimony of PW-1 has remained entirely unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason for the Court to disbelieve either the testimony of PW-1 or documents filed by the plaintiff more particularly from Ex.PW1/2 (colly) to Ex.PW1/10, General Loan Agreement, Letter of undertaking, Letter of Installment with Acceleration Clause, Letter of Acknowledgment of debt dated 02.01.2017, Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 17.03.2011, Declaration cum Undertaking Authority dated 17.03.2021, General Form of Guarantee, Accounts Statement, Legal Notice dated 13.07.2020 alongwith postal receipt, are duly proved, as per law. Furthermore, certified statement of account has been duly filed by the Bank and showing outstanding of Rs.3,25,717/- Ex.PW1/9 is duly proved. The perusal of statement of account, shows that as on 29.09.2015, last payment of Rs.6,500/- has been received from the defendant and there have been no deposits or payments of further EMIs against the loan account in question in favour of the plaintiff Bank. It is further proved on record that owing to more than three successive consecutive defaults towards payment of monthly installments against the loan account in question, the plaintiff bank was constrained to declare the loan account as NPA on 23.02.2016. An outstanding amount of Rs.3,25,717/- is claimed as due and recoverable from the defendant, after due consideration of all the amounts paid by the defendant against the loan account in question from time to time. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant executed letter of Digitally signed CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia PREETI by PREETI Page 8/17 AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 GUPTA 17:19:25 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 acknowledgment of debt dated 02.01.2017, admitting his liability towards the outstanding amount of Rs.1,87,558/-. The statement of account has been maintained with due entries against withdrawal and deposits qua the defendant. There is no reason to doubt the entries in the statement of accounts made by the bank in regular course of business. Accordingly, the statement of account is duly proved as Ex.PW1/9, as per law.
15. The present suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank based on claim for recovery of outstanding amount shown in the Statement of Account alongwith interest, showing an outstanding balance in Car Loan as Rs.3,25,717/-. It is however to be considered whether plaintiff is entitled to sustain the present Suit for recovery against the defendant, as per the applicable provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, by operation of law of limitation, a period of three years is available to file the money recovery Suit from the date, when the right to recover accrues upon the plaintiff Bank, in respect of the outstanding money dues recoverable against the defendant. It is already proved on record that PW-1 has duly discharged the onus to prove the statement of account vide Ex.PW1/9 in light of the duly proved loan agreement Ex.PW1/2(colly), by which the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- was granted and paid to the defendant as on loan against purchase of vehicle. It is also proved on record that the defendant was liable to make the payment towards the loan account in equated monthly installment, which was paid lastly as on 29.09.2015. The plaintiff has also duly proved that the loan account was declared NPA as on 23.02.2016.
Digitally signed by CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia PREETI PREETI Page 9/17 AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA
Date: 2025.09.01
GUPTA 17:19:29 +0530
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025
Also, most relevant consideration is the letter of acknowledgment, by which defendant admitting his liability toward the outstanding amount, stated to be executed by the defendant in respect of the outstanding loan account of Rs.1,87,558/- as on 02.01.2017. It is therefore, to be examined if the principal outstanding amount of Rs.1,87,558/-would be recoverable by the plaintiff bank by way of the present Suit, along with its entitlement to claim pendentelite and future interest, if any granted by the Court.
16. It is now relevant to consider the applicable statutory provisions and legal position to ascertain whether suit of the plaintiff has been filed before this Court, within limitation, so as to sustain the present Suit in recovery against the defendant, as per law.
17. Now, it may be relevant to consider that the starting point of limitation is generally the date of default (i.e., the date when EMI/loan repayment was not made as per contract). Classification of the account as NPA is only a consequence under RBI norms and does not automatically become the limitation start date. For recovery actions like filing a suit or initiating proceedings, limitation is counted from the date of default, subject to valid acknowledgement under Section 18 or part-payment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. It is not the case before this Court that any part payment was made by the debtor/defendant, after the last payment deposit, as per the statement of account Ex.PW1/9, as Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL GUPTA Page 10/17 Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.01 17:19:32 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 on 29.09.2015.
18. As per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if a debtor acknowledges liability in writing which is signed before the expiration of the limitation period, a fresh limitation shall be reckoned from the date of such acknowledgement. It is further well settled legal position that the classification of the loan account as NPA (Non-Performing Asset) by itself does not preclude the possibility of an acknowledgement of debt, during the period of loan. Courts have clarified that an acknowledgement made even after the account is declared NPA, but before the expiration of limitation period, is a valid acknowledgment. However, if the acknowledgement is made after limitation has already expired, it will not revive a dead claim.
19. The binding legal position has been laid down by the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India, (2021) 8 SCC 481, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 267, wherein the three judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held as under :-
"43. Ordinarily, upon declaration of the loan account/debt as NPA that date can be reckoned as the date of default to enable the financial creditor to initiate action under Section 7 IBC. However, Section 7 comes into play when the corporate debtor commits "default".
Section 7, consciously uses the expression "default" -- not the date of notifying the loan account of the corporate person as NPA. Further, the expression "default" has been defined in Section 3(12) to mean non-payment of "debt" when whole or any part or Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL GUPTA Page 11/17 Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.01 17:19:36 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not paid by the debtor or the corporate debtor, as the case may be. In cases where the corporate person had offered guarantee in respect of loan transaction, the right of the financial creditor to initiate action against such entity being a corporate debtor (corporate guarantor), would get triggered the moment the principal borrower commits default due to non-
payment of debt. Thus, when the principal borrower and/or the (corporate) guarantor admit and acknowledge their liability after declaration of NPA but before the expiration of three years therefrom including the fresh period of limitation due to (successive) acknowledgments, it is not possible to extricate them from the renewed limitation accruing due to the effect of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Section 18 of the Limitation Act gets attracted the moment acknowledgment in writing signed by the party against whom such right to initiate resolution process under Section 7 IBC enures. Section 18 of the Limitation Act would come into play every time when the principal borrower and/or the corporate guarantor (corporate debtor), as the case may be, acknowledge their liability to pay the debt. Such acknowledgment, however, must be before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation including the fresh period of limitation due to acknowledgment of the debt, from time to time, for institution of the proceedings under Section 7 IBC. Further, the acknowledgment must be of a liability in respect of which the financial creditor can initiate action under Section 7 IBC."
20. In the facts and circumstances of the present, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/9, the last date of payment made by the debtor/ defendant against the loan account is proved by the witness of the plaintiff himself as PW-1, as on 29.09.2015. As per the legal position herein-above discussed, the period of limitation of three years would lapse, if there was no acknowledgment in writing, made by the defendant, within the running period of three years from the date of last payment. As per the plaintiff, the loan Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL GUPTA Date:
Page 12/17GUPTA 2025.09.01 17:19:39 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 account was declared NPA as on 23.02.2016. As per binding law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Pat Surana's case (Supra), the date of NPA does not preclude the debtor from making an acknowledgment in writing in respect of the outstanding liability in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
21. It is considered that the letter of acknowledgment was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank as on 02.01.2017, which is well within the period of three years from the date of last payment made by the defendant. Therefore, as per law, Section 18 of Limitation Act comes into play to extend the limitation and reckon a fresh period of three years from the date of acknowledgment of the liability, to the extent of the debt acknowledged by way of the document i.e. Acknowledgment of debt vide Ex.PW1/5. Perusal of Ex.PW1/5 reveals that debtor (defendant herein) acknowledged an outstanding debt of Rs.1,87,558/- in favour of the plaintiff bank, as on 02.01.2017. Therefore, the prescribed period of limitation of three years was available with the plaintiff bank, to file the Suit for recovery and sustain the claim before this Court, as per law.
22. There are two other aspects on the point of limitation, which need consideration. The Court has duly examined the date of filing the application u/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by the plaintiff bank. As per non-starter report issued u/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by the competent authority, Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA Page 13/17 GUPTA Date:
2025.09.01 17:19:44 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 application was filed on 28.12.2020 and the date of issuance of non-stater report, after the settlement process could not be fructified, has been issued on 02.02.2021. As per settled legal position, the duration of time spent in pre-litigation mediation ought to be excluded for computation of limitation. The Second aspect, which may be relevant for consideration is for any benefit of exclusion of COVID period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, that may be available with the plaintiff bank, to save the limitation of the present Suit, in terms of well settled law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Misc. Application no. 21 of 2022, Misc. Application no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition © No. 3 of 2020, passed on 10.01.2022, and 'Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. Vs. Pyrotek India Private Limited & Ors', in SLP No. 2522/2022.
23. In the peculiar facts before this Court in the present case that the application u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was filed by the plaintiff bank on 28.12.2020, which was filed after expiration of the available period of extended limitation from the date of the acknowledgment of debt as on 02.01.2017. It is considered that the limitation to claim the outstanding due of Rs.1,87,558/- in terms of letter of acknowledgment Ex.PW1/5 dated 02.01.2017 was available for a period therefrom and accordingly, limitation expired after 02.01.2020. Clearly, even the application for pre-litigation mediation u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was filed on behalf of plaintiff, after the limitation period had already expired more than eleven months ago, Digitally signed PREETI by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA Page 14/17 GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 17:19:48 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 in order to file a valid legal recoverable claim for recovery in respect of the loan account in question. Accordingly, having considered all the relevant dates for reckoning the period of limitation for filing the present Suit by the plaintiff Bank, it is proved on record that the plaintiff bank is entitled to take the benefit of extension of limitation in terms of Section 18 of Limitation Act, on the basis of letter of acknowledgment of debt Ex.PW1/5, executed by the defendant on 02.01.2017. It has been further considered that the period of three years for filing the suit for recovery would accordingly lapse on 02.01.2020, that is after computing for a period of three years from the date of acknowledgment of debt vide Ex.PW1/5. At the cost of repetition, it has been duly considered by the Court that the last date of payment by the defendant against the loan account in question, was made on 29.09.2015 duly proved vide statement of account Ex.PW1/9. Therefore, as per duly prove facts of the case, the letter of acknowledgment of liability Ex.PW1/5 was executed within the permissible period of limitation that is within the three years from the date of last payment by the defendant. However, after extending the available period of limitation with effect from date of letter of acknowledgment Ex.PW1/5, claim could be raised by the plaintiff to recover the outstanding liability within the period of limitation of three years that lapsed on 02.01.2020. Filing of an application for pre-litigation mediation after expiration of available period of limitation, cannot give life to a dead claim. There is no question applicable for granting any exclusion of the period spent during pre-litigation mediation as the limitation had already lapsed, when Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL GUPTA Page 15/17 Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.01 17:19:52 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 such application was moved u/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, on behalf of plaintiff.
24. The only second aspect for extension of limitation, if any that could be considered in the facts of the case, would be the exclusion of the period of outbreak of pandemic of COVID-19. The suit of the plaintiff has been filed on 16.03.2021 to give the first impression that the exclusion of COVID from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, shall be available to the plaintiff to seek exclusion for the purpose of limitation, as per law herein-above considered in the afore-detailed para No.22. However, it has been discussed and considered that the period of limitation, for claiming the outstanding amount of Rs.1,87,558/-, as per acknowledgment of liability vide Ex.PW1/5, available in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, is lapsed by way of operation of limitation of expiration of a period of three years from Ex.PW1/5 that ended on
02.01.2020. As per the binding exclusion period by operation of law from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, would come into play only if the available period of limitation was running into the COVID period. In the present case, the limitation to seek recovery of the outstanding debt on the basis of Ex.PW1/5, supported by the statement of account Ex.PW1/9 was available with the plaintiff only till 02.01.2020. Accordingly, the limitation in favour of the plaintiff for sustaining the Suit for recovery against the defendant on the basis of outstanding recoverable balance against the loan account in question, had already lapsed before the commencement date of exclusion period of the COVID pandemic. The fact that the Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia AGRAWAL GUPTA Page 16/17 GUPTA Date:
2025.09.01 17:19:55 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 application u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was filed by the plaintiff bank during the exclusion period owing to the COVID Pandemic, does not come into rescue of the plaintiff as the limitation had already exhausted prior to the exclusion period for the purpose of computation of limitation.
25. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff has filed the present Suit to seek recovery of a time barred debt, which is not sustainable and recoverable, against the defendant, by operation of law.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Suit of the plaintiff fails for want of limitation and is accordingly, dismissed.
27. File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today on this 1st day of September, 2025 Digitally signed PREETI by PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.01 17:20:00 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025 CS (Comm.) No.241/2021 Bank of Baroda Vs. Rajesh Bhatia Page 17/17 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.09.2025