A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

I.A. 9391/2025 (Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), on the ground that the suit is not maintainable for being barred by limitation.

2. It is the case of the defendants that the 16^th running bill for Rs. 4,99,82,236/- dated 04^th July, 2014 raised by the plaintiff, has already been rejected by the defendants vide letter dated 09^th October, 2014. Thus, all the legitimate dues of the plaintiff for the work done under the Agreement dated 20^th July, 2007 for “Const. of Road under Bridge at Level X-ING in Vivek Vihar I.T.I”, has already been paid by the defendants. The cause of action, if any, arose last on 09^th October, 2014, when the defendants rejected the claim of the plaintiff.

3. As per the defendants, the plaintiff failed to take any legal action for more than seven years, and in order to circumvent the limitation period, the plaintiff has artificially created a cause of action on the basis of a fictitious and self-serving bill dated 09^th September, 2024, seeking escalation charges.

4. Further, the plaintiff has attempted to rely upon a receipt dated 04^th January, 2023 to invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”), to extend the limitation period. However, this receipt does not qualify as an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of of the Limitation Act, as it was not made by the defendants within the prescribed limitation period of the plaintiff’s claim, which ended on 03^rd July, 2017. Thus, the alleged receipt dated 04^th January, 2023 does not constitute a valid acknowledgment as it was made long after the expiration of the limitation period of the plaintiff’s claim raised under the bill dated 04 ^th July, 2014.

5. As per the defendants, the question of limitation in the present case is purely a question of law, as the dates of bill, i.e., 04^th July, 2014 and rejection of bill, i.e., 09^th October, 2014 have been clearly given. Further, the right of the plaintiff based on the 16^th running bill dated 04^th July, 2014 extinguished in the year 2017, and cannot be revived at this stage.

6. Per contra, on behalf of the plaintiff, reliance is made upon the receipt dated 04^th January, 2023, issued by the defendants, in response to the 16^th running bill dated 04^th July, 2014 to submit that the defendants, being a statutory authority, have clearly made an admission of approximately Rs. 25 Lakhs, to be released in favour of the plaintiff.

7. He further relies upon the communications dated 06^th February, 2023, 06^th March, 2023 and 19^th July, 2024 from the defendants in this regard.

8. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that questions involving limitation and factual disputes regarding acknowledgments, etc., are mixed questions of law and fact, and therefore, cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, at the outset it is to be noted that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only averments made in the plaint, along with the documents filed, are germane. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on merits, would be irrelev