( 1 ) APPELLANT is the defendant in a suit for recovery of Rs. 6 lacs or so filed by first respondent. It had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC claiming that this suit was barred by time which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 13. 05. 2004. Appellant assails the order and asserts that suit was time barred and the plaint warranted outright rejection for this in any case.

( 2 ) THE suit filed by first respondent is based on the work done by this respondent under the agreement dated 26. 08. 1993 executed between the parties. In this it is claimed that first respondent (plaintiff) had raised a bill for Rs. 5. 5 lacs vide invoice dated 28. 08. 1995 and had also raised one more invoice for Rs. 1. 5 lacs and rupees one lacs but Appellant (defendant) had failed to pay this amount. Thereafter, two legal notices were served on the Appellant which were replied on 18. 09. 1997 and 12. 01. 1998 denying the liability giving rise to the cause of action to file the suit.

( 3 ) APPELLANT filed I. A. No. 8432/2002 under Order 7 Rule 11 and sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was time barred because the plaintiff (first respondent) on its own showing had raised the last bill on 26. 11. 1995 and had filed the suit on 17. 08. 2000 which was barred by time on the face of it as it could have been filed within three years from the date when the work was done under Article 18 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 which time had expired on 25. 11. 1998.

( 4 ) THIS application was contested by first respondent (plaintiff) claiming that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and the period of limitation had to reckon from the date of refusal of demand notice, i. e. , 12. 01. 1998. Learned Single Judge relying on two judgments of Rajasthan and andhra Pradesh High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur Vs. Priya soloman (AIR 1999 Rajasthan 102) and Khala Quthabullah Vs. Government of andhra Pradesh and Ors. (AIR 1995 Andhra Pradesh 43) rejected Appellant s application holding: - in the case in had the averments contained in the plaint as also the documents filed along with the plaint do so that the parties were in touch on the question of payment of the suit amount pertaining to the three invoices for the service rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant even after the last voucher was issued by the plaintiff. Certain discussions and meetings followed between the representatives of the plaintiff and defendant. Whether these averments are correct or the plaintiff would be able to prove the same or not will be seen only and answered after trial. In view of this position, this court is of the opinion that it will not be appropriate to reject the plaint under the Provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The defendant s application is dismissed. However, any observations made herein will not tantamount expression of opinion on merits on the question of limitation. The issue of limitation can more appropriately be considered and answered at the appropriate stage of the trial.

( 5 ) APPELLANT attacks the impugned order on the ground that learned Trial Judge had failed to appreciate that the basis of the plaintiff s plaint were the invoices of which the last was raised on 26. 11. 1995 - the date from which the limitation period of three years was to be reckoned and as the suit was filed on 17. 08. 2000, the limitation period had expired on 25. 11. 1998. The learned Judge had also fallen in error by taking note of the subsequent correspondence between the parties which could not have extended the limitation to file the suit which could be only extended by an acknowledgment of liability made in writing and signed by the party.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Mr. Chadha contended that the cause of action arose to respondent from the date the last bill was raised and not from the date Appellant replied to respondents notice denying its liability. The suit was governed by Article 18

Click Here to Read the rest of this document