The High Court dismissed the first appeal challenging the rejection of a suit for recovery of money billsably barred by limitation law despite claimed suspensive periods.
The first appeal under Section 96 CPC is dismissed and the impugned order upholding the bar of limitation is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
M/S KHATEMA FIBRES LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
KCL LIMITED ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.1363/2018 (for condonation of delay)
days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No.29/2018
court has rejected the plaint on account of being barred by time.
RFA No.29/2018 Page 1 of 3
the second being as regards a suit filed before the civil court at Karkardooma and which plaint was returned to the appellant/plaintiff on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
RFA No.29/2018 Page 2 of 3
admittedly for the period from 1.3.2010 to 13.9.2011 i.e approximately 558 days. The period spent in the civil suit before the Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is from 22.2.2012 till 4.3.2013 i.e approximately 377 days. Therefore, a total of 935 days i.e 558+377 days have to be added from 8.7.2012 for calculating the last date on which the appellant/plaintiff should have filed the suit. When we add this period of 935 days to 8.7.2012, the suit would have to be filed within 2 years and 205 days i.e roughly 2 years and 7 months. When a period of 2 years and 7 months is added to 8.7.2012 we would reach the month of at best January, 2015. The subject suit which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment however has admittedly been filed on 21.3.2016 i.e much after the last date of three years prescribed for filing of the recovery suit on the basis of sale of goods.
court has committed an error in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on account of the suit being barred by time. There is no merit in the appeal.
JANUARY 12, 2018/ Ne VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
RFA No.29/2018 Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for periods spent in winding up and a previous suit dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Whether the plaint was properly rejected as being barred by time under Section 96 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S KHATEMA FIBRES LIMITED
KCL LIMITED
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
