The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 356 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI AMIR AHMAD S/O HABIB AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT MOHAL CHIRAN GALI NAIRIYAN, TOPKHANA ROAD, RAMAPURA DISTRICT, U.P. RAMAPURA – 244 301. (BY SRI JAYARAJ GOWDA M.N., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. SRI ANOOP DAGA S/O LATE J.K.DAGA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S J.R & CO, COMPLETE STEEL SERVICE, NO.21/1, GANGAMMACHARI STREET, MOTINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 002. 2. M/S. TATRA BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD., NO.116/2, SIGLAGATTA MAIN ROAD, EKRAJPURA, HOSKOTE – 562 114 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
No.1(c) before this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently contend that the last of the transactions between the parties is in the year 2014; the suit, admittedly is filed on 25.10.2019 before the civil Court and it is five years after the transaction. The limitation is 3 years and therefore, the suit ought not to be entertained by the concerned Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel of respondent No.1 - plaintiff would vehemently contend that the last of the transactions is by way of a cheque; the cheque gets dishonoured in the year 26.10.2016; the original suit was registered on 25.10.2019 and the matter was then transferred to the commercial Court and renumbered as Com.O.S.No.520/2022. For compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the matter was referred to mediation. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR COVID comes about and the limitation is extended. Even otherwise, he would contend that the cheque is issued in the year 2016 and therefore, it was well within limitation. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of dates of events are not in dispute. What has driven the petitioner to this Court is the order passed on the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC. The concerned Court going through the plaint averments, rejects the application on the score that the last of the bill of exchange (cheque) is on 26.10.2016 and the suit is instituted on 25.10.2019 and therefore, it was well within three years. The reason so rendered reads as follows: “…. …. …. 8. In the background of above circumstances and position of law, let the court decide the present - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR application. The plaintiff allegedly supplied goods to the defendant and the defendant partnership firm was liable to pay more than Rs.35,00,000/-. On 25.02.2014, the defendant No.1 firm wrote a letter to the plaintiff admitting its liability of Rs.30,27,907/- and has made a payment of Rs.2,25,214/-through RTGS and also issued some cheques. One such cheque was dated 06.09.2016 bearing No.126817 for Rs.30,00,000/-. On 26.10.2016 the said cheque was presented and on the same day the said cheque came to be dishonoured. On the basis of the said cause of action, the plaintiff has also initiated a criminal case in PCR KAN755/2017 subsequently numbered as C.C.No.1909/2017. In the background of the above circumstances, the plaintiff had filed O.S.No. 7730/2019 on 25.09.2019 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru for recovery. In view of the establishment of Commercial Courts, the said case was renumbered as Com.O.S.No.370/2019. Since the plaintiff had filed the said suit without complying Sec. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the plaint was returned with a direction to comply the said provision. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached DLSA in PIM No.305/2019. During the Covid period, the parties did not appear before the DLSA. Having waited for several dates of hearing anticipating arrival of the defendant, the DLSA finally closed the petition and issued Non Starter report dated 18.09.2020. The plaintiff having receipt of the Non Starter report, filed the present suit on 31.03.2022. 9. On 26.10.2016, the cheque bearing No.126817 was dishonoured and on 25.10.2019 the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.7730/2019, subsequently, the same was renumbered Com.OS.No.370/2019. As per Article 40 of the Limitation Act, three years is the limitation for filing of the suit for recovery of money covered under a bill of exchange (cheque) from the date of refusal to accept. Thus, it is clear that, the suit bearing O.S.No. 7730/2019 was well within the period of limitation. 10. The Commercial Court had returned the plaint for compliance of Sec.12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The plaintiffs spent time in PIM from 13.12.2019 until 18.09.2020/As per second proviso appended to Sec. 12A(3) of Commercial Courts Act, the said period shall - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR 15.03.2020 not be computed for the purpose of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.3/2020 in the matter of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation passed an order dated 10.01.2022 holding that, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that, in case where the limitation would have expired during the period 28.02.2022, between notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the present case, the Non Starter report was issued on 18.09.2020. By the virtue of the directions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the plaintiff of the present case had limitation upto 31.06.2022. The present suit was filed on 31.03.2022. Thus, the suit is well within the period of limitation. It is needless to say that, by the virtue of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, the time spent in the suit bearing O.S.No. 7730/2019 has to be excluded and the same is hereby excluded. till
Arguments
3. MR. SOKAT ALI SAIN S/O CHANDMOHAMAD, MAJOR, R/AT NOKHA DT BIKANEER, NEAR JAUMA MASJID, RAJASTAN – 334 001. AND SO AVAILABLE AT, M/S TOTAL SOLUTIONS BUILDING MATERIAL TRADING LLC, A1 KHABAISI STREET, NEAR LEADER SPORTS, DEIRA, DUBAI UAE P.O.BOX – 114 747. 4. MR. AAMIR KHAN S/O MUSHEER KHAN, MAJOR, NO.318, 4TH CROSS, BABA LANE, OPP: KERALA MASIDE, OLD MADRAS ROAD, DOORAWANI NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 016. AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT RESIDING AT NO.36, 11TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN ROAD, B.T.M LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 068. 5. MR.MUSHEER KHAN S/O SRI SATTAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 11TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 068. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR 6. MR. K.CHAND PASHA S/O SRI M.D.KASIM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.416/2, MUSHTARI MANZIL, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, DHARGA MOHALLA, DOORAVANI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWBHAGYA D., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-87)., IN COM.O.S NO.520/2022 WHICH WAS AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER TO DISMISS THE SUIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant No.1(c) is before this Court calling in question an order 10.03.2025, passed by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-87), whereby, an application – I.A.No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR seeking rejection of the plaint, in Com.O.S.No.520/2022, comes to be rejected. 2. Heard Sri Jayaraj Gowda M.N., learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Sowbhagya D., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The first respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the proprietor of one M/s.J.R. and Company, which is in the business of wholesale supply of steel and other allied materials. During the business transaction with one M/s.Tatra Metal Industries, a partnership firm of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as its partners, respondent No.1 – plaintiff supplies material under various invoices. The allegation is, the payments were not regularly made and the firm fell due of an amount of `35/- lakhs. The plaintiff is said to have called respondent Nos.5 and 6 to settle the entire amount, which is the payment that the plaintiff is to receive. The said payment is dodged for long time. Notices caused, go in vain. It transpires that thereafter, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR one Mr.Aamir Khan informs the plaintiff that M/s. Tatra Metal Industries has been dissolved and is in a new avatar as M/s.Tatra Building Material Company Private Limited. The newly formed company is said to have agreed to make the payment of `30,27,907/- after adjusting various invoices. It transpires that, on the said belief of the representation of the newly formed company, the plaintiff keep quiet for long time and then generate certain communications. The amount is not paid or the cheque that was issued gets dishonoured. Dishonouring the cheque has lead the plaintiff to file P.C.R.No.755/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The matter is pending as C.C.No.1909/2017. The plaintiff then institutes a suit in the year 2019, seeking recovery of money in O.S.No.7730/2019. The suit comes to be instituted on 25.10.2019. The matter is then transferred to the commercial Court which becomes Com.O.S.520/2022. During the subsistence of the suit in Com.O.S.520/2022, the petitioner – defendant No.1(c) files an application – I.A.No.1 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, on the score that it is beyond limitation. The concerned Court - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR rejects the application on the score that it was within limitation and even otherwise, the limitation is pure question of facts and law. The rejection of it, has driven the petitioner - defendant
Decision
11. For the foregoing reasons, the court proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA No.1 filed U/Or.VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Sec. 151 of CPC is hereby rejected.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court by rendering cogent reasons has rejected the application on a twin score. One, the last of the transaction was on issuance of a cheque on 25.10.2016, which gets dishonoured and the suit is instituted on 25.10.2019, which - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR was within three years and the period spent during COVID has been extended by the Apex Court by taking suo motu cognizance for extension of limitation in W.P.(C) No.3/2020, IN COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION reported in (2021) 18 SCC 250, wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows: “8. Therefore, we dispose of MA No. 665 of 2021 with the following directions: 8.1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15-3-2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 3-10-2021. 8.2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 2- 10-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 3-10-2021. In the limitation event the actual balance period of remaining, with effect from 3-10-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 8.3. The period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 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.” (Emphasis supplied) - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22480 CRP No. 356 of 2025 HC-KAR I do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugned order, which does not suffer from any perversity as the issue of limitation in the case at hand is mixed question of facts and law. The civil revision petition is dismissed, accordingly. I.A.No.1/2025 stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54