Dismissed

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Pilaniwala Synthetics Private Limited

Rajasthan HC28 Jul 2025CFA/482/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 482/2021 dismissed the appeal against the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court held the suit for recovery to be barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC affirmed; appeal dismissed.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:28195-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 482/2021

¶4

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., (Riico) Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Officer In Charge,

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Pilaniwala Synthetics Private Limited, F 75 And 76 RIICO Industrial Area, Rayala District Bhilwara, Registered Office, Pilaniwala Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. 2322, Pilani Bhavan Nahargarh Road, Chandpole, Jaipur.

¶8

Smt Damyanti Devi W/o Sh. Nandkishore Agrawal, 2322, Pilani Bhawan, Naharagarh Road, Chandpole, Jaipur.

¶9

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Sh. Nandkishore Agrawal, 2322, Pilani Bhavan Nahargarh Road, Chanpole, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshat Chaudhary

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

28/07/2025

¶15

Heard.

¶16

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against order dated 09^th September 2021, passed by the Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan-II, whereby the plaint filed by the plaintiff has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that on account of non-recovery of loan amount, admittedly notices were issued to the defendantloanee by the plaintiff on 12^th January 1998 and even then when

¶18

[2025:RJ-JP:28195-DB]

¶19

[CFA-482/2021]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

money was not paid back, the plaintiff took over the possession of the mortgaged and hypothecated property on 02^nd February 1998. Even after selling the mortgaged and hypothecated property on 21^st March 2002 and 24^th March 2006 respectively, when the loan was not satisfied, seven years thereafter on 21^st March 2013, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery under the provisions of State Financial Corporation Act,1951 (for short ‘the Act of 1951’).

¶22

After receiving summons and notices, the defendantrespondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising an objection that as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act of 1963’), limitation for filing suit for recovery of money is only three years, whereas it is apparent from the plaint itself that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 24^th March 2006, yet the suit has been filed seven years thereafter and as such, suit was hopelessly time barred.

¶23

Reply to the application was filed on behalf of plaintiff mentioning therein that the question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law; and therefore, the same can be decided only after framing of Issue and taking evidence. 6. After hearing both the parties, the Commercial Court below has rejected the plaint treating the suit to be barred by limitation. 7. It is settled proposition of law that while examining an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only contents of the plaint are relevant. It is manifestly clear by perusing the plaint itself that the plaintiff has averred that 24^th March 2006 was the date on which cause of action accrued to the appellant/plaintiff. Under these circumstances, provisions of Article 137 of the Act of 1963 are quite clear where suit for recovery of money can be filed only

¶24

[2025:RJ-JP:28195-DB]

¶25

[CFA-482/2021]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

within a period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Admittedly, suit was instituted by the plaintiff beyond period of limitation. Hence, after perusing the admitted contents of the plaint, no further material was required for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶28

It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Vs. Ashok K. Agarwal & Ors., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 617 that even in the cases where recovery of loan is to be made as per the provisions of State Financial Corporation Act, Article 137 of the Act of 1963 shall apply. Thus, we find that no error whatsoever has been committed by the Court below in rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶29

For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit and substance in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.

¶30

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶31

(K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ

¶32

KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/4

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Pilaniwala Synthetics Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Pilaniwala Synthetics Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Jain Alias Virendra Jain S/O Shri Rikhab Chand Jain, Vs International Cargo Carrier

M/S Harsh Kisan Seva Kendra through Its Proprietor Mr. Ved Prakash Dhadich Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Its Executive Director and Rajasthan State Head

Agarwal Marbles Private Limited (Tata Crossland) Vs State of Rajasthan