JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by order No. 56 dated 19.07.2021 and order No 59 dated 16.11.2021 passed by Learned Judge, Commercial Court at Asansol in Money Suit No. 06 of 2020 present application has been preferred.

2. Petitioner contended that the petitioner filed a money suit for recovery of Rs. 8,63,64,478/- against the defendant/petitioner in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Davison), Bankura which was registered as Money Suit No. 25 of 2015. The proceedings of the suit continued and evidences were placed and cross examination was continuing. On 28.11.2019 the defendant/petitioner filed an application under section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for transfer of the case to the Designated commercial Court at Asansol and it was accordingly transferred and renumbered as Money Suit No. 6 of 2020.

3. The petitioner/defendant filed an application for rejection of plaint before the learned Commercial Court at Asansol inter-alia on the ground of limitation stating that the alleged claim which the plaintiff had put forth pertained to period prior to September, 2011 and the plaint was filed on September 30, 2015 and as such the claim ought to have been made within three years from the date when such payment became due and the plaintiff by clever drafting cannot make or create illusion in the mind of the learned Court as the plaint case is hopelessly barred by the laws of limitation and accordingly prayed for rejection of the plaint.

4. The Court below rejected the aforesaid application for rejection of plaint by the impugned order no. 56 dated 19.07.2021 and referred the matter to mediation. Thereafter petitioner herein/defendant filed an application for recalling the aforesaid order no. 56 dated 19.07.2021 and the opposite party/plaintiff filed their objection thereto. The learned commercial court at Asansol vide other impugned order being order no. 59 dated 16.11.2021 also rejected the said application under section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 pertaining to recalling the order no. 56 dated 19.07.2021.

5. Mr. Chatterjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in order to consider the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) the court can look into the averments in the plaint and from the annexures it appears that the bills against which the claim has been made, are undated and pertaining to the period prior to 2012. Though by clever drafting the plaintiff/opposite party has created the illusion of a cause of action in the mind of the learned Court but practically plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the said suit. If the contents of plaint is taken in it’s true and proper perspective, the learned court would have arrived at a conclusion that the plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue and he ought to have rejected the plaint. He further pointed out that suit ought to have been filed on or within 19.04.2014 but instead of that the suit has been filed by plaintiff on 30.09.2015. In fact as per the plaint case, plaintiff’s alleged claim against the defendant based upon non-payment of bills bearing No. 1 to 24 relating to several works purportedly done by the plaintiff for the defendant. Petitioner submits that the alleged claims of the plaintiff have allegedly arose against said purported bills bearing no. 1 to 24 under memo no. 145 and 149 dated September 21, 2011. He has also drawn attention of the court in respect of the bills and of the annexure to show that except one bill other bills do not disclose any date. In this context he relied upon judgment reported in 2020 (7) SCC 366 and argued that court below has to determine whether plaint prima facie discloses cause of action.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that from the statement of the plaint it is evident that the plaintiff has been engaged as contractor by the defendant/company and the relation