The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in LA,No 714 of 2023 in O.S.No.6 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Kamareddy pending disposal of the Revision. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vijay B. Paropakari Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vonjari Raja Shekar Reddy and Sri Venkat Ram Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER ,) ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JI,'STICE PULLA I(ARTHIK CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4155 of2O24 This' Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of tl:.e Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 seeking to set aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, at Kamareddy, in I.A.No.714 of 2023 in O.S.No.6 of 2023. 2) Vide impugned order, the application hled by the revision petitioner-defendant No.1 by invoking Order VII. Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint in O.S. No.6 of 2023 fi.led by the respondents-plaintiffs for want of limitation, was dismissed by the learned trial Judge 3) Heard Sri Vij ay B.Paropakari, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri Vonjari Raja Shekar Reddy and Ventak Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4l Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that in the instant case there is no continuous cause of action and as such the suit filed by the respondents against th" revision petitioner is barred by limitation. a :* :? 2 PK, J cRP 4r55 2024 Further, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the impugned application erroneously and the interpretation of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellarleous Application No.21 of 202.2 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2O2l in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C) No.O3 of 2O2O by the learned trial Judge is incorrect. l,earned counsel has contended that vide order dated 10.O1.2022, the Honble Supreme Court has permitted 9O days to be added from O1.03.2022 in respect of those cases where limitation was expired during the period 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. But, in the present case, the Agreement of Sa-le is dated

16.O7.2019 and the suit is filed on 10.05.2023. Hence, the reliance placed by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the impugrred application is misplaced. As regards limitation, reliance has been placed on Aruindanam u. T.V. Satgapal Singhl. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents- Plaintiffs has contended that in view of the order dated 7O.O1.2O22 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2O22 in Miscellaneous I AtR 1977 SC 2421 cRP 4155 2024 Application No.665 of 2O2l in Suo-motu Writ petition (C) No.O3 of 2O2O, the entire period from 15.03.2020 .to

28.02.2022 has to be excluded while calculating the limitation period. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is weII considered and needs no interference of this Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7l As can be seen from the record, the revision petitioner- defendant No.l has executed an agreement of sale dated

16.O7.2019 in favour of respondents herein agreeing to sell a portion of open plot (Western side) covered by Survey Nos.68/l and 6812, admeasuring 223.51 Sq. yards, situated at Ward No.l, Block No.5, Siricilla Road, Kamareddy Town and Mandal, Kamareddy District, after taking certain portion of consideration amount and thereafter failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the. plaintiffs. As such, the respondents=plaintiffs have filed a suit for Specific Performance of agreement of sale dated 16.O7.2019 vide O.S. No.6 of 2023 before the trial Court on 10.05.2023. Hence, seeking to reject ttre plaint on the ground of limitation, the revision petitioner-defendant No. t has filed the impugned c. ) 4 PK, J cRP 4155_2024 application arrd the sarne was dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide impugned order dated 12.12.2024 duly placing \ reliance on the order dated lO.Ol.2O22 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No-21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2O2l in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C) No.O3 of 2O2O. 8) The contention of the revision petitioner is that only in cases where the limitation period expires between 15.03.2020 and. 28.02.2O22, the relaxation period of 90 days has to be permitted and therefore the said order is not applicable to the case on hand. It is no doubt true that the perusal of order dated 9) lO.Ol.2O22 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly para 5 (lII), reveals that a period of 9O days has to be added w.e.f.01.03.2O22 in respect of those cases wherein the limitation period expires between 15'03'2020 and

28.02.2022, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. But, in the present case, the case of respondents-plaintiffs falls under the clarification stated at para 5 (IV) of the order dated 10.01.2022, wl:.ich. reads as under: a,*.*ffi*ffi aei**t#,-*r.,HLi&L;r-... 5 PK. J cRP 4155_2024 "lt is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 20 15 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings." 10) Further, in its later judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arlf Azim Compang Ltd.. a. Aptech Ltd.z has well clarified the above said orders. Relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder for better adjudication/understanding of the matter: " The effect of the above referred order of this Court in the facts of the present case is that the balance limitation Ieft on 15.03.2020 would become available w.e..f .O1.O3.2O22. The balance periqd of limitation remaining on 15.03.2O2O can be calculated by computing the number of days betrveen 15.03.2020 and 27.03.2021, which is the day when the limitation period would have come to an end under ordinary circumstances. The balance period thus comes to 1 year 13 days. This period of 1 year 13 days becomes available to the petitioner for invoking arbitration proceedings would have come to an end on 13.03.2O23." 2 (2024) 5 SCC 3 I3 I t t I Ir 6 PK, J cRP_4 rS-s_2024 11) In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge has rightly extended the beneht of the order dated lO.Ol .2022 passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.2l of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2O2l in Suo-motu Writ petition (C) No.03 of 2O2O to the respondents-Plaintiffs ald this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. l2l Coming to the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Anindo,na;m's case (referred. supra), the .same is inapplicable to the facts of the present case wherein the peculiar circumstarices of Covid 19 pandemic prevail. 13) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Miscelldneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal District Judge at Kamareddy. 2. One CC to Sri Vijay B. Paropakari Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Vonjari Raja Shekar Reddy and Sri Venkat Ram Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4- Two CD CoPies Kam,/gh s HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 t I ORDER CRP.No.4155 of 2024 1t\ E STA I e J ) 01 tlAY 20[ z o I t oE.s.'r.rcH t DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION @)qd w