The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/Defendant AND

1. Mohd. Zakheer Hussain, S/o Mohd. Azmathulla, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o Kamareddy Town and District.

2. Mohd. Moiz, S/o S/o Mohd. Azmathulla, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o Kamareddy Town and District. ...Respondents/Pla intiffs 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 1.A.No.654 ot 2023 in O.S.No.5 of 2023 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, Hyderabad, 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 ,,, t\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4L73 of 2o24 ORDER:. This Civil Revision petition, under Articl e 22T of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner_defendart No.1 seeking to set aside the order d,ated 12.12.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, at Kamareddy, in LA.No.654 of 2023 in O.S.No.5 of 2023. 2l 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 r51 of code of civil procedure to reject the plaint in O.S. No.5 of 2023 ftled, by the respondents-plaintiffs ror want of rimitation, was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. 3) Heard. Sri Vijay B.paropakari, learned counsel for tl_re revrslon petrtloner, and Sri Vonjari Raja Shekar Reddy and Ventak Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4l Leained counsel for the re,y"ision 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 the revision petitioner IS barred by limitation. 2 PK, J cRP 417 3 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 Honble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaleous Application No.665 of 2O2l in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C) No.O3 of 2O2O by the learned trial Judge is incorrect. Learned counsel has contended that vide order dated 1O.01.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted 9O days to be added from 01.03.2022 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 Sale is dated 1,6.07.2019 and the suit is filed on 1O.O5.2O23. Hence, the reliance placed by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the impugned application IS misplaced. As regards limitation, reliarrce has been placed on Antind.anam a. T.V. Satgapal Singht. 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

1.O.O1.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous I ArR t977 SC 2421 .t J PK, J cRP _4173_2024 Application No.665 ot 2027 in Suo_motu Writ petition (C) No.03 of 2020, the entire period from lS.O3.2O2O to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded while calcujating the limitation period. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is well considered and needs no interference of this Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) Heard both sides and perused the materia_l 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 (Eastern side) covered by Survey Nos.68/1 and 68/2, admeasuring 223.51 Sq. yards, situated at Ward No.1, Block No.S, Siricilla Road, Kamareddy Town arrd Mandal, Kamareddy District, after taking certain portion of consideration amount and thereafter failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. respondents-plaintiffs have hled a suit Performance of agreement of sale O.S. No.S of 2023 before the trial Court on 10.05.2023. Hence, seeking to reject the plaint on the ground of rimitation, the reyision petitioner_defendant No.l has frled the impugned dated 16.07.2019 vide for Specihc As such, the J 4 PK, J cRP 417 3 2024 application and 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.2022 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.03 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.O2.2022, the relaxation period of 9O 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 (III), reveals that a period of 9O days has to be added w.e.f.O 1.03.2 O22 in respect of those cases wherein the limitation period expires between 15'O3'2020 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 1O'01'2022' w!:rich reads as under: 6 PK, J cRP_417 3-2024 'It 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 (a) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18g 1 and any other 1aws, 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 Arif Azim Compang Ltd. a. Aptech ltd,z has well clarifred the above said orders. Relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder for better adjudication/understalding 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 left on 15.03.2020 would become available. w.e.f .O1.O3.2O22. The balance period of limitation remaining on 15.03.2O2O can be calculated- by computing the number of days between 15.O3.2O2O and 27.03.2O21, which is the day when the limitation period would have come to an end under ordinary circum-stances. 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.O3.2O23.,, , (20241 5 SCC 3r3 { I t I 6 PK, J cRP 4173 2024 11) In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge has rightty extended the benefit of the order dated lO.Ol.2022 passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Miscellaleous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellanelous Application No.665 of 2O2l in Suo-motu Writ petition (C) No.O3 of 2O2O to the respondents-plaintiffs and this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 12) Coming to the judgment relied by the learned ,counsel for the petitioner in Antind.anam,s case (referred. supra), the same is inapplicable to the facts of the present case wherein the peculiar circumstances of Covidlg pandemic prevail. 13) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Priniipal District Judge at Kamareddy 2. One CC to Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Voniari Raja Shekar Reddy and Sri Venkat Ram Reddy' i Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies Kam/gh A trJ HIGH COURT DATED:28103t2025 1 I ORDER CRP.No.4173 of 2024 6E STAI€' 1+c t J 01 r'r[Y 2025 t oE.srarc$€(' * 2 a] DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETTTION COq,N w