Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, every case has to be dealt with in its own facts and circumstances. While considering the challenge of limitation given by the applicants/defendants, first the Court has to look into the pleadings in the plaint to ascertain what is the date of cause of action and whether the cause of action thereafter took place or not. It is a money recovery suit, so the limitation is for three years. The transaction between the parties is not disputed fact, however, a plea is taken by the respondent/plaintiff of receiving the defective and sub-standard goods. The respondent/plaintiff has averred in the plaint that after the use of lift inverters, the respondent realized that it was defective and they brought it to the knowledge of defendant no.1 and when they tried to sell the lift inverters to its customers, lift inverters, being sub-quality goods, failed to give expected results. So, this problem was pointed out to the defendants, who agreed principally that electricity circuit required modification and therefore, they forwarded a service bulletin to the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that lift inverter has basic manufacturing and design defect, so they contacted the applicants/defendants continuously. There was a correspondence between the plaintiff and defendants in respect of defects and clearing the manufacturing defects. The plaintiff has annexed the correspondence to the plaint,
