The court held that the issue of limitation for rejection of plaints is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating evidence rather than being resolved at the preliminary stage.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

C.M. APPL. 46454/2017 (condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, by Petitioners) in C.R.P. 276/2017

C.M. APPL. 46463/2017 (condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, by Petitioners) in C.R.P. 277/2017

1. Present applications have been preferred on behalf of the Petitioners for condonation of delay of 41 days in filing both the revision petitions.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Aditya Goel, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent.

4. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed.

5. Delay of 41 days in filing both the revision petitions, respectively, is condoned.

6. Applications stand disposed of.

C.R.P. 276/2017 & C.M. APPL. 46452/2017 (Stay)

C.R.P. 277/2017 & C.M. APPL. 46461/2017 (Stay)

7. Both these Revision Petitions lay challenge to a common order dated 05.08.2017 passed by learned Trial Court in C.S. No. 8957/2016 and C.S. No. 8339/2016 respectively, whereby applications filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaints, have been dismissed. Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the suits before the Trial Court and Petitioners herein are the Defendants. Parties are referred by their litigating status before this Court, for the sake of convenience.

8. Facts to the extent necessary for disposal of these petitions are that Respondent filed two suits for recovery against the Petitioners in the Trial Court at Faridabad, Haryana. Petitioners filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 20 CPC for rejection of the plaints, on the ground that the Court at Faridabad did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits. The applications were dismissed by the District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 24.10.2013. Revision Petitions preferred against the said order were allowed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated 18.02.2015, directing the Trial Court at Faridabad to return the plaints to the Respondent for being presented before the Court at Delhi, within 4 weeks of the endorsement by the Court. It was also held that if the suits were filed within 4 weeks from the endorsement by the Trial Court, bar of limitation shall not be raised by either party and suits shall be decided in accordance with law.

9. Upon receiving the original plaints, Court fee and the documents, Respondent initially filed the suit being C.S. No. 8957/2016 in this Court on 29.06.2015, for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,08,972.66/- with costs etc. and on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the same was filed before the Trial Court on 24.02.2016. C.S. No. 8339/2016 was filed before the Trial Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,52,471/-. Pertinently, both the suits initially filed as Summary suits, were subsequently treated as ordinary suits vide order dated 16.11.2016.

10. Petitioners filed written statements along with applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaints. In the applications, Petitioners raised the following issues: (a) Respondent has not presented original plaints, despite the directions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana; (b) without the leave of the Court, Respondent has changed the original plaints with fresh plaints, which is not permissible under law; and (c) no formal application und