Vishnu Kumar Modi v. National Insurance Company Limited

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2026CR/258/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC, CR No. 258 of 2025, decided 05.01.2026, Amitendra Kishore Prasad J. Delay in filing a civil suit cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act; trial Court's order condoning delay in a recovery suit by National Insurance Co. Ltd. set aside; trial Court directed to frame a specific issue on limitation (mixed question of law and fact) and decide it per law; revision allowed. Ajay Gupta v. Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yadav (2016) 14 SCC 314 cited by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed: the trial Court's order condoning the delay in filing the suit was set aside, with a direction to the trial Court to frame a specific issue on limitation and decide it in accordance with law. ¶¶26

Vishnu Kumar Modi Vs National Insurance Company Limited — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit can be condoned by way of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, making the trial Court's order condoning the delay in filing the recovery suit illegal and rendering the suit liable to be dismissed. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

The limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a civil suit cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

The question of limitation is required to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court after framing an appropriate issue in this regard.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

On the averments made in the plaint itself, the suit appears to be barred by limitation; the Court does not finally decide the bar, leaving adjudication to the trial Court.obiter¶¶25
While setting aside the impugned order, the learned trial Court is directed to frame a specific issue on limitation and decide the same in accordance with law.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (CR No. 258 of 2025), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided on 05.01.2026 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad. The learned trial Court had allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing a recovery suit brought by National Insurance Company Limited against Vishnu Kumar Modi; aggrieved, the defendant preferred the present revision. Held (single judge): the limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a civil suit cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act; from the plaint averments the suit appears barred by limitation, and the question of limitation is to be adjudicated by the trial Court after framing a specific issue and decided in accordance with law. Accordingly the impugned order was set aside and the revision petition allowed. In support of the applicant's case, counsel relied on Ajay Gupta v. Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yadav, (2016) 14 SCC 314; the citation appears in counsel's argument and the Court did not engage with it by name, so it is recorded as referred.

2026:CGHC:505

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CR No. 258 of 2025

¶6

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶7

1 - Vishnu Kumar Modi S/o Late Shri Matadin Modi Aged About 54 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Vishnu Modi Before Trail Court ) Proprietor M/s Anand Auto Agency Near Nahar Bridge Main Road Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - National Insurance Company Limited Plot No. 786, Above Bandhan Bank Niharika, Korba Tehsil And District - Korba (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

For Applicant:Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶14

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

05.01.2026

¶17

The suit for recovery has been filed by the National Insurance

¶18

Company against the defendant, in which it has been categorically

¶19

¶20

pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation and, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The learned trial Court allowed the said application and condoned the delay in filing the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is palpably illegal and liable to be set aside, as the limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit cannot be condoned by way of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Gupta v. Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yadav , reported in (2016) 14 SCC 314. It is, therefore, contended that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in condoning the delay and, on this ground alone, the civil suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if the suit is alleged to be barred by limitation, the learned trial Court is required to frame a specific issue in that regard and decide the same in accordance with law. It is contended that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be adjudicated only after framing of issues and consideration of the evidence, and therefore the trial Court is competent to decide the same at the appropriate stage.

¶23

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

From a perusal of the record, it is evident that from the averments made in the plaint itself, the suit appears to be barred by limitation, for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. It is well settled and not in dispute that the limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a civil suit cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the question of limitation is required to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court after framing an appropriate issue in this regard. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the learned trial Court is directed to frame a specific issue on limitation and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶26

Thus, the revision petition is allowed.

¶27

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶28

Vishakha

Vishnu Kumar Modi v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar Modi v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijendra Kumar Bani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sushila Verma

Vinod Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mulchand Thakur Vs National Mineral Development Corporation (Nmdc)

Shabir Ansari Vs Sunil Kumar Pandey