"1 2026:CGHC:1780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 11 of 2026 1 - Rahul Somani S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Somani Aged About 36 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Mrs. Rekha Somani W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Somani Aged About 59 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - Bajaj Electricals Limited Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ashwani Samal, Aged About 47 Years, S/o Shri Abhimanyu Samal, R/o 406, Wallfort Ozone, 4th Floor, Near Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, C.G. Pin 492001 2 - M/s Ramgopal Somani Station Road, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Ramgopal Somani S/o Late Shri Ganesh Narayan Somani Aged About 69 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani, And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Varun Kumar Somani S/o Shri Ramgopal Somani Aged About 34 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani, And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicants/defendants No. 03 and 05 challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Raipur in Commercial Suit No. 12-B/2025, whereby the application filed by the present applicants as well as defendant No. 01 and 04 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation has been dismissed. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has held that the suit filed by the respondent No. 01/plaintiff is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act and that the cause of action for filing the fresh suit would be deemed to have accrued from the date of rejection of the earlier plaint, i.e., 03.10.2023, and consequently the suit instituted on 21.08.2025 was held to be within limitation. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 01/plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 72,35,625.05/- through its authorized power of attorney holder. It has been pleaded that defendant No. 01 is a partnership firm and Printed from counselvise.com 3 defendant Nos. 02 to 05 are its partners. According to the plaint, the defendants approached the plaintiff company on 21.01.2016 and placed a purchase order for supply of electric poles and high mast lights, pursuant to which an advance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid. The total value of the goods to be supplied was Rs. 68,39,100/- including GST. The plaintiff claims to have supplied the material between 27.03.2016 and 10.05.2016, and as per its ledger an amount of Rs. 61,39,100/- remained outstanding. It is further pleaded that a cheque for the said amount was issued by the defendants which was dishonoured, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, on 09.01.2017, a partial payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- was made, leaving a balance amount of Rs. 31,39,100/- unpaid. A demand notice dated 18.11.2019 was issued, and thereafter the plaintiff instituted a civil suit on 19.12.2019, which was returned by the Court on 12.04.2023 for presentation before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction. The suit presented before the District Judge, Janjgir was again returned on 27.06.2023 at the admission stage on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit before the Commercial Court, Naya Raipur, which came to be rejected on 03.10.2023 for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. After alleged compliance of the said provision, the present suit was filed on 21.08.2025. Printed from counselvise.com 4 4. After service of summons, the present applicants/defendants No. 03 and 05 as well as defendant No. 01 and 04 filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that as per the plaint averments themselves, the last payment was admittedly made on 09.01.2017 and, therefore, the cause of action for filing the suit arose on that date. It was submitted that the suit is for recovery of money arising out of commercial transactions and is governed by Articles 26 and 41 of the Limitation Act, which prescribe a limitation of three years. It was further contended that the present suit filed on 21.08.2025 is hopelessly barred by limitation and that mere filing of suits before wrong forums or rejection of plaints on technical grounds does not extend or revive limitation. On the other hand, the plaintiff opposed the applications by submitting that the earlier plaints were rejected on technical grounds and that a fresh cause of action accrued on 03.10.2023, the date of rejection of the plaint for non-compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, and therefore the suit is within limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order, accepted the contention of the plaintiff and rejected the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit is within limitation. It is this order which is under challenge in the present revision. Printed from counselvise.com 5 5. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants No. 03 & 05 submitted that the cause of action for filing the suit admittedly arose on 09.01.2017, when the last payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- was made, which is clearly pleaded in the plaint itself. It was contended that the suit is for recovery of outstanding dues arising out of commercial transactions and is governed by Articles 26 and 41 of the Limitation Act, prescribing a limitation of three years from the date when the money becomes due. Learned counsel further argued that the present suit filed on 21.08.2025 is hopelessly barred by limitation by more than four years, and that mere filing of suits before wrong forums or rejection of earlier plaints does not automatically extend or suspend limitation. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court committed a grave error in holding that a fresh cause of action accrued from the date of rejection of the earlier plaint on 03.10.2023, which is contrary to settled principles of law. It was argued that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act has neither been properly pleaded nor adjudicated, and such benefit cannot be assumed at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without evidence. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that from the averments made in the plaint itself, it is not in dispute that the last payment towards the alleged outstanding dues was made on 09.01.2017. The plaintiff Printed from counselvise.com 6 has also pleaded institution of earlier suits and return or rejection of plaints on various grounds. Whether the suit is governed by Articles 26 and 41 of the Limitation Act, as contended by the defendants, or by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, as claimed by the plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act on account of bona fide prosecution of earlier proceedings, are questions which cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of plaint averments without examination of factual aspects relating to diligence, good faith, jurisdiction and nature of the proceedings earlier instituted. 7. It is a settled position of law that where the issue of limitation depends upon adjudication of facts and requires evidence, the same becomes a mixed question of law and fact. In such circumstances, the plaint cannot be rejected outright under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, nor can the issue be finally decided without affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court, instead of conclusively holding the suit to be within limitation, ought to have framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation and decided the same after recording evidence of the parties. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, while setting aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Raipur in Printed from counselvise.com 7 Commercial Suit No. 12-B/2025, the learned Trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue on the question of limitation, give appropriate opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead their evidence, and thereafter decide the said issue in accordance with law. If, after recording evidence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is within limitation, it shall proceed to adjudicate the suit on merits. If it is found that the suit is barred by limitation, appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. Limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, the same can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Civil Revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE Printed from counselvise.com "