The High Court · 2025

M/s.Sri Balaji Transports, Done, Kurnool D strict, Rep. by its proprietor Jonnalagadda Balaji, S/o.J.Viswanatham R/o.H.No.18/7, Main Bazar, Pathapeta, Dh ne Town, Kurnool District hetty, age 46 years, Occ Business, ...RespondenU RespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayi g that in the circumstances stated in High Court may be pleased to stay 17 on the file of court of Principal the affidavit filed in support of the petition, t of all further proceedings in OS.No.54 of District Judge at Nalgonda. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Somava pu Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Lokirev P tam Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER :":f i- *E!3!rs-r-7 }ION'BLI.] SRI JUSTICE, T,AXMI NARAYANA AI-ISTIETTV C.It.P.No.l236 of 2022 oRt)I)t: lhis ( ir il Revision l'etition is filed assailinc rhe ordcr datcd 1i,0.1.2012 in I.,\ No.1464 ol 20ll in O.S.No.54 ol 20 17 on rhe filc of tlrc lcatrrcd Prirrcipal I)istrir:t JLrdgc. at Nalgonda, whercin and u,hcrcby thc applicatiorr liled by pctitioncr under Order VII Rulc I I of CPC. 'uvas rlisrnissctl. I llcard Nlr. Sollta\atallu Sat\auaravana, Icarncd counscl lirr the i)ctrti()D( r' anLi I\4 r. l.okire V l)rce tnrn l(eddy. learnccl coLrnscl firr ics l)ond(] 1t. .1. '[ hr-' blicr'lactrral rrairix o1'lhc casg is that initiallr. the rcsponCcnt lilccl thr: Suit lirr l'cco\/cry of'rnoncy against thc petitioner ltclirre the Iclrncd I Arltlit.iotral I)istlict .ludgc, Kurnool (fbr shorr, "l AD.l. K.trrnool").'l-htr pctitioncr hcrc,n has IileC an applictrtion r,iz.. l.A.No_109 ol l0 ll in ().S.No.53 ol 2008 undcr Ordcr XIV Rule 2 ot' C .p.C:. to tlccide tuo (2) rssucr; i.e.. fssuc No.2 as to nhether thc I AI).1. Kurnool lras te rritorial jrrrisrlie tion to clecide thc Suit and Issue No. I as to rvhellror thc SuiL clairr is barrcrl bv limilation. 'l he I ADJ, Kurnool. on consiclering the coutcnl.ions l)ut tbl'th by both the parties, vide ordel rlated 17.03.2017 alloucd rhe rrpplic:ar.ion partl_\ b), holcting that, the trjal Courl has no l I,NA. J Ul{P.No. I236 o1' 2022 -;'i,oi,.,;i territorial .jurisdiction to decide th Suit: and liuthcr held thar the deficiency of Court lee cannot bc ccided as prelirninary issuc and directed thc respondont herein to p seut the plaint bclbre conoerne<l Court within fiftecn ( l5) days lrorn Lhc datc ol thc order

4. Pursuant order datcd 17.03.2

17. the rcspondcnt presetrtcd thc plaint beforc the learncd Principal I)is iot.ludec. at Nalgonda. (for short "l']DJ, Nalgonda") on 31.03.2017 i.e.. rvithin (1-5) days rirnc granrcd b1, the trial Court and the suit is renum rcred as ()S.No.54 ol 2017. 't he pctitioner herein flled an applicatio yide t.A.No.1,164 ol 2021 in O.S.No.54 ol 2017 under Ordcr Vll I ule ll of C.['.C. lirr re.jection ol plaint on the ground that thc Suit i barrcd by lirnitation. Ihe PDJ. Nalsonda vide impugned order. dis nissed thc said applicatiun br observing that as per Section 14 o1't e [,irnitation Act. tirne spcrrt trr wrong forum has to bc excludcd whilc mputing thc period ol limitation Aggricved by the same, the petitioncr p f'elred the prescnt I(cvis ion

5. Lcarncd counscl for thc petition r submits that respondent hercin supplied iron ore to petitioner on 30.0 2005 and 31.10.2005 and raised invoices on 01 .10.2025; that alleging d fault in payment 0l'atnount, the respondent fitcd suit vide O.S.No.-53 f 2008 bcforc thc learned PD.l. Nalgonda. On an application filed by p titioncr hercin under C)rder XIV -) LNN..I CRP.No.1236 ol 1022 Rulc 2 aud Scction l5l ol C.P.( .. vidc I.A.No. 109 o1'2011 in O.S.No.53 o12008. the trirrl ('oult vidc ordcr dated l].03.201'7, retuulcd the suit $ith ir dircction to tlrc rcspondeut to prcsent the plaint belorc appropriate Court having.jurisdiction.

6. I-earncd counscl lbr the pctitioner lurther sublnits that the tirno spcnt for pulsuinl tlte suit trefbrc the rvrong {brurn i.e.. PD.l. Kumool l-ras to be ine ltrdccl rrnrl rl'thc said l)criod is includecl. the Suir is bancrl b1 lirlitation as thc lransaction took placc in the month ol'scptcntber. 2005. ancl u,hereus. thc Suit rvas re-sutrrnittccl befbre thc learned PDJ. Nalgonda on -l 1.03.20 I'1. Ilc turther suirmirs that P[)J. Nalgonda cnoneously disrnisscrl the application Iiled by the potitioner by relcrring to Scclion l4 ot the I.intitation .Act rvhich has no application to tll!- llrcscnt case. llclying Lrpon thc tlecisions passcd b1, the llon'ble Suprente Court in Daltihen l./s. .lrvin hltui Kol.ytnji Bhunusali (Gajra)(D) through l-Rs and Olhcrst arttl Shri lltukund Bhwan Trust antl others Vs. Shrimtnt Chholroputi L't1tr.1,1111 Rrtjc Pratapsinh Mahuoj Bhonsle uul tutother2, he pral.'d to allou rhr- C.l{.P. and rc ject the plaint.

7. I-oarned coLrnscl lbr the tcspondent contends that the Suit was Illed u ithin the period of linritation and ttro sarnc rvas returnsd by trial Court L 2o2o (.rrAL'r'(s(') :i)i r1) B J ,slI r AI 'l (sci .'r:)ll )() LNA..I CRP.No. I 236 of 2022 ;itL': i a on 11 .03.2011 granting tittcen (15 days lor resubmissiolt belorc the appropriate Cou11. and accordingl the plaint rvas rcsubmittcd on I 1.03.2017. within the tirne sranted y PDJ, Kulnool. [[e *,ould lurther sLrbrnit that Section l4 of the Lirritati n Ac[ stipulatcs that the tintc spcnt in pursuing thc mattcr in wrong orum has to be excluded rvhile cornputirrg rhe pcriod ol linritarion, t ercforc. the trial Court has rishtlv disn'rissed tl-re application and prescn Revision is rlcvoid ol'rnerits. and thus. liablc to be dismissed.

8. In vicw of atrovc lacts and ci umstanccs. the onlr questiou that [blls for consideration is whetlrer tirne spent belbro thc Principal Disrrict .lutlgc. Kurnool in pursuing the Suit as to be cxcluded or not. u,hile conrputing the Iimitation. 9, Scction l4 ol the Limitation Act clearly specil'ies rhar. ila plainrilf or applicant has been diligently and in good faith pursuing a cii,il procceding in a oourt that ultirnatel cannot entertain it due to a .jurisdictional dcfect or similar reason, that tirne can be excluded uhen calculating the limitation period tbr frli a tiesh suit or application in the oorrect court

10. Admiltedty, rhe Suit was initiallv filed beforc PI)J. Kurnool within ._thc period of linritation in the year, 2 8 and consequcntly upon Order ) I,N,\. ,I CRI'].No.1236 o1'2022 dated 17.03.2017 in lA, No. I()9 ol 2014, the suit \\'as re-submitted on

31.03.20 l7 i.c.. u,ithin a period of fllieen (15) days granred by the trial Court. I1. I'he dccisions citcd 1sa7,r-a t ottct 2lrclicd upon bv the pctitioner have no application to the casc on hand, and the tacts an(l circurnstances [hcrcin are cornplctcll, clifllrcut rvith that ofprcscnt casc. In the case on hand. thc suit u as lllcd u ithin the period of lirnitation. irnd thc sanre was returncd lbr prcscntatiorr betbrc lhc CotrrL having.iurisdie rion.

12. In vieu of thc abovc statcd principlc. thc tirnc spent by the respondent bclbre thc l)rinoipal I)istrict Judge, KLrrnool has to be excluded ivhilc cornputing thc period of Iimitation. I]ence, the learned PDJ. Nirleoncla has lightlv disrrrissed the application. 'l'hc petitioncr failed to point out anr illegalitr or irresularity in the irnpugned order and thus. Civil [{e vision I,etition lirils. Ii. r\r;r:orlingll, this CiviI llcvision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending misccllaneous epplications, if any, shall stiurd closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/. B. CHANDRA PRAKASH t SI TANT REG]STRAR \ 't.SECTION OFFICER To, t. The Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. 2. One CC to Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to [Vlr. Lokirev pretam Reddy, Advocate tOpUC] 4. Two CD Copies DUPSL vk_ 1Hf. S i4 7'( ..' 12 t[E [E (i' z {)r, .S p r,1 g; rr r:'r-\ , ,.:, HIGH COURT DATED:O710712025 ,/lI /( !: J I 3 () ORDER CRP.No.1236 ol 2O22 ,+t) DISMISSING THE C.R.P G-a&a k"