Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vijay Kumar Son Of Shri Babu Lal Mahajan vs Sunita W/O Shri Suresh Chand Sharma on 6 April, 2022
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 111/2021
Vijay Kumar Son Of Shri Babu Lal Mahajan, Aged About 42
Years, R/o B-76, Raj Nagar Part-1, Gali No. 5, Palam Colony,
Delhi - 110077
----Petitioner
Versus
Sunita W/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, R/o Village Tasing, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
06/04/2022
Petitioner-defendant has filed this revision petition, invoking the scope of Section 115 of CPC, assailing the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Behror, District Alwar in Civil Suit No.73/2013 whereby and whereunder his application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC has been decided.
It has been submitted that respondent-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.18,37,500/- on the basis of a cheque.
In the plaint itself, plaintiff has averred that the principal sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was credited to defendant on 22.07.2010 in presence of witnesses and for re-payment of the same, defendant issued cheque to plaintiff. Since the cheque has dishonoured being stale, the instant civil suit for recovery has been instituted on 22.07.2013.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2022 at 09:08:31 PM)
(2 of 3) [CR-111/2021] In the plaint, it is also stated that since on the last date of limitation I.e 21.07.2013 it was the Sunday, hence the suit was instituted on the next working day i.e. 22.07.2013. The submission of counsel for petitioner is that by taking note of pleadings of plaint itself even if it is stated that the amount was credited on 22.07.2010 and the suit be treated as instituted on 21.07.2013 (though due to Sunday on 21.07.2013 it was instituted on next working day i.e. 22.07.2013), the civil suit travels beyond period of limitation of three years. The calculation of three years may be made on the basis of calendar of relevant years. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court, in case of Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties & Ors. Reported in [(2020) 6 SCC 557] more particularly on para No.52.
Having heard counsel for appellant and on perusal of impugned order as also of the plaint, it appears that before filing of the present application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, petitioner- defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation. His application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 03.09.2015. Thereafter, second application to the same effect was filed which too was dismissed on 02.06.2017. The petitioner sought liberty to file application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and instituted the present application.
The trial court has asked parties to adduce evidence on the issue of limitation, in order to examine the determination of three years and the fact whether the suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation of three years or not? (Downloaded on 08/04/2022 at 09:08:31 PM)
(3 of 3) [CR-111/2021] With such observations, the application filed by petitioner has been decided.
In the opinion of this Court, bare perusal of plaint does not disclose undisputedly and admittedly that the plaint is clearly barred by limitation. For calculation of the period of three years, if the trial court has allowed the parties to produce their evidence, it may not be observed that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or committed any material irregularity which leads to miscarriage of justice with the parties. The principle of law as propounded by the Supreme Court in case of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) is squarely not applicable to the facts of present case. The averment of plaint itself do not give a clear reflection to hold the civil suit for recovery of money as barred by limitation. The issue can be considered more better and decided after recording evidence of parties.
For reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order within the scope of Section 100 CPC. If the impugned order is allowed to sustain, the same would not occasion to a failure of justice. Hence, the civil revision petition is not liable to be entertained and the same is dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SAURABH/3 (Downloaded on 08/04/2022 at 09:08:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)