The High Court · 2025

ORDER This Rcvision Petition is filed directed agairrst the order dated 14.09 2011 passcd in I.A.No.4t6 ol 2023 in OS.No.309 of 2022 on the flle of Principal District Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri K.Vcnu Madhav, learned counsel fbr revision petitioner, and Sri M.Vii ckanancla Reddy. Iearned counsel lor the respondent.

3. The petitioner is def'endant and the respondent is plaintiff in the suit. For corrvenience, the panies will be hereinaftcr refened to as arrayed in thc suit 4 ln nut-she ll, thc l.rcts of tl're case, required for disposal ol the present Revision Petition, are that plaintilf fl led the af orcmentioned suit against thc clef'cndant lor recovery of money on the basis of two separatc Ankadas/receipts, dated 15.12.2019, that the def'endant entcrcd appearance ancl filed an application vide I.A.No.4 l6 ol'102i undcr.Order VII Rule ll CpC ro r.eject rhe plain t

5. ln rhe al'fidavit Illed support of the application, the def'endant ar'cr'cri that rhc plaintill'liled tl-re suit allegi,g that the \ 7 I-NA. J CRP.No.3148 oJ 2023 defendant borrowed a sum of Rs 85 lakhs on 15.12.2019 and executed two separate Ankadas/rec( :ipts for a sum ol Rs.45 lakhs and Rs.40 lakhs respectively, agr4 eing to repay the same with interest @ 2oh per month; that a led al notice was issued on behalf' ofthe plaintiffto the defendant on 2

1.10.2022, for which reply rvas got issued by the defendant throu! ;h his counsel on 25.10.2022 denying the debt as well as th! relationship between them However, surprisingly, the suit r.! as filed by the plaintifl on

16.12.2022. The defendant further i Lverred that the plaintilf fhiled to disclose the mode of payment of s uit amount and further. there rs no cause of action for filing the suit and therefore, the suit is liabte to be rejected

6. A counter was filed on be f of plaintiff denying the averments made in the application d further, contended that the suit is within the period of limitatio with specified car"tse of action and as such, the application fited by e defendant is vague and not specific, and hence, the plaint cann t be rejected at any stretch of imagination. It was further specific lly averred that the allegation of the defendant that no cause of acti n had arisen lbr filing the suit cannot be decided sumrnarily and hat it is well settled law that { LNA, J CRP;va34 48 of 2023 question of law and facts cannot be read in isolation and a party cannot be petmitted to canvas beyond his/her pleadings to their convenience and as such, the application is untenable and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the application. l. The triat Cou( vide impugned order dated 14'09'2022 dismissed the application with an observation that the' ptaintiff disctosed the cause of action lor lrling the suit, therefore, the plaint need not be rejected. 'l-he trial Coud lurther observed that Ar.rkadas were allegedly executed by the def-endant on 15.12.2019 and plaint was presented on 16.12.2022 and as such, the plaint is within the limitation period of three years. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present Revision Petition is {rted'

8. Leamed counsel lor petitioner'/defendant submitted that in the application, the def-endant has taken a specific stand that the suit is barred by limitation and no cause of action had arisen for filing the suit. I-le fufther submitted that the alleged amounts were given by the ptaintifTto the detendant on 15.12.2019 and Ankadas were allegedly executed on I 5. 12.2019, however, the suit was filed on 16.12.2022, which is clearly barred by limitation, since the time limit lor filing a suit for recoverv ol- money based on promissory 4 l-.\',1..1 C R P.Na.J44E oI202J + t note, in thc present case Ankadas, is only three years and admittedly, the suit is filed after expiry of three years and two days, however, the trial Court lailed to appreciate the said fact and came to an erroneous conclusion that the suit is filed within thc period ol lirnitation of three years, which is contrary to Limitation Act and therefore, the impugned order *arl'ants interference by this Court Learned counsel finally prayed to allow this Revision Petition and consequently. to rcject the plaint.

9. Learncd counsel for the rcspondent/plaintiflf submitted that the application liled by the delendant is vague sincc the defendant except alleging that no cause of act[on had arisen for filing thc suit, has not raised any other specific ground including the aspect of limitation. He fur-ther submitted thht the trial Court has discussed the point ol'limitation though there is no specific plea raised by the defendant in the apptication and u[.,.*"r"d the same in favour ol plaintifL lle turther submittcd that the trial Court, on due appreciation olthe contentions raised in the application filed by the defendant as well as in the counter filed on behalf of the plaintiff, has rightty dismissed the application and as such, no grounds are made out to intert-ere with the well-te asoned order of the trial Cor'rrt ( ) LNA, J CR P. No.3448 oI2023 and hence, this Revision Petition, being devoid of rnerits, is liable to be dismissed

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the defendant has not raised specific ground in the application that the suit is barred by limitation. As rightly contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, a perusal ol the applicati6n would disclose that no such ground/plea has been raised by the defendant in the application except taking the ground of lack of cause of action for filing the suit, however, the trial Couft has gone into the aspect of limitation and came to an erroneous conclusion that the suit was filed within the limitation period of three years i 1. It is relevant to reler to the ratio laid down bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saketh Indfu Limited Vs. Indit Securities Limite(t .ln the said case, notice ol bouncing of cheque was served on the drawer on 29.09.1995 and the period of 15 days provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act expired on

14.10.1995, horvever, the complaint was filed on 15.11.1995. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Coum held that the first day of the cause of action for making cornplaint 15.10.1995 was held to be excluded and il so computed after excluding that day, the ' 1rsss1 : scc r 6 r)\. LNA, J CRP.No.3448 of 2023 complaint flled was held to be thin time. Similar issue fell for consideration belore a learned sir]ele Judee of the erstwhile High Courl of Andhra Pradesh in enkayala Bhadrum Vs. Noni Venkala Rao2 , wherein the suit filed on 02.11.1971, based on promissory note executed on 0?

1.1968, was held as barred by limitation by the trial Court; th4t on Revision being filed, the learned single Judge has relerred to Arlicle 36 of the Limitation Act and obser-ved that the said Se tion does not specify as to how the period ol limitation has to b computed and that it is only Section l2 of the Limitation n4t that prescribes the mode of computation ol Period of limitati]on and by observing thus and following the ratio laid down by the I{on'ble Supreme Court in Saketh India Limited's case (cit(d supra), held that the date on which cause of action arisen has to be excluded.

12. In the present case, admi ttedly, the suit was filed on

16.12.2022, basing on Ankadas/ receipts dated 15.12.20 l9 for recovery of moneY. It is relevant t 4 refer to Article 35 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, as per whic the time limit for filing a suit for recovety of rnoney basing on promissory note is three years lrom the date of execution of pro ssory note. While computing 2 20ot scc online AP 979 (' -------- 'r 7 LNA, J CRP.No-3448 ol2023 the period of limitation, as per Secrion l2 (l) of the Limitation Act, for any suit, appeal or application, the day from whiclt such period is to be r.eckoned shall be excluded. 13. In the light of the aforcsaid provisions of the Limitation Act and further, as held by the I{on'ble Apex court in saketh India Limitetl's case (cited supra), it is serrled principle ol law that th. date ol execulion or promissory note has to be excruded whire computing the period of limitation and by calculating thus, in the present case, the Iimitation cornrnenced from I 6.12.2019 and, expired on l5.l 2.2022, however, the suir was filed on 16.12.2022. Thus, it is evident that even ilwe exclude the date ofexecution of Ankadas, stilt the plaint was filed beyond tfuee years, which is clearly baned by limitation. [jurther, though no specific plea has been raised by the defendant in the application with regard to bar of limitation, in the considered opinion of this Court, no purpose would be served in continuing the suit and relegating the parties to rigorous trial in vierv of conclusion of the Court tirat the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, this Revision petition deserves to be allowed. 8 rj\ 1N,1, J CRI'.No.l44E of 2023

13. In the result, this Civil Revi ion Petition is allowed, setting p aside the order dated 14.09.2022 p assed in I.A.No.4l6 of 2023 in OS.No.309 ol 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Warangal and consequently, the sai,d [.A. stands allowed.

14. Miscellaneous petitions pen ing, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. Sd/- M. NAGAMANI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE CO Yil SECTION OFFICER To, One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Just ce Laxmi Narayana Alishetty (For His Lordships k nd Perusal)

1. The Principal District Judge, Warangal 2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, M irfristry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyd$rabad One CC to SRI K VENUMADHAV, Advo ate [OPUC] One CC to SRI M VIVEKANANDA RED Y, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 4 5 6 7 ABK./kam HIGH COURT DATED: 0910612025 ORDER CRP.No.3448 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS ?l l.,o 4 b D e 1r{i:- srA 14: 1o c (-) IE AUE , D1:Snr,- 9t t '-:::-j---' ((( a