B.N. KARIA, J.

1. The appellant-original plaintiff by this Appeal, preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [“the Code” for short], has challenged the judgment and order dated 17th March 2017 passed below Application Exh. 22 by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Rajkot in Commercial Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016 by rejecting the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. In order to adjudicate the controversy between the parties, at the outset, it is imperative to cull out respective facts of the case on hands from the pleadings in suit filed by the plaintiff to the extent of deciding the dispute raised before us.

3. In a Special Civil Suit No. 15 of 2011 filed before the Court of learned Special Judge, Special Court [Alang], Bhavnagar filed under Order XXXVII of the Code, the appellant-original plaintiff [hereinafter referred to as, “the plaintiff”] sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,98,63,129/- from the opponent-original defendant [hereinafter referred to as, “the defendant”] towards the long standing dues to be paid by the defendant against various head enumerated therein.

4. Upon noticing that the suit involves commercial dispute of a specified value; as defined under Section 2 [c] read with Section 12 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division & Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 [“hereinafter to be referred to as, “the Act of 2015”], the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar under Order dated 23rd May 2016 made below Exh. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 15 of 2011, transferred the case papers to the Commercial Court, Rajkot, relying upon provisions of Sections 9 [1] and 15 [2] of the Act of 2015. Accordingly, the said suit came to be transferred to the Commercial Court at Rajkot, wherein it was re-numbered as Commercial Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016.

5. In an application moved by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the main resistance amongst other things was that the suit being barred by the law of limitation, need not be entertained.

6. The said application Exh. 22 came to be resisted by the plaintiff-Gujarat Maritime Board inter alia on the ground that the amount fallen due towards various charges had been duly acknowledged by the defendant through its communications dated 22nd March 2010; 20th August 2010 and 27th August 2010 seeking further time to pay off the dues, and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit could not be said to be time barred.

7. Before the Commercial Court, it was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant-Jogadia Polymers Private Limited had entered into a contract with the plaintiff-Gujarat Maritime Board where under Plot No. 144 in the Ship-breaking Yard at Bhavnagar was allotted to it. However, as per the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay beaching charges, pilot charges and other ancillary charges; as leviable in the terms of the applicable regulations of 1994, concerning ship-breaking yards, qua the same plot allotted to the defendant. That, as per the terms and conditions of the said contract, the plaintiff had already taken possession of Plot No. 144 on 27th December 2007 from the respondent and therefore also, liable to pay charges fallen overdue under the terms of agreement.

8. The learned Commercial Judge, Commercial Court, Rajkot after hearing the respective parties at length, concluded that the plaint does not bear any dates; save the date when possession of Plot No. 144 was taken back; the date when the alleged acknowledgment of debt has been made, and therefore, in absence of there being any cause of action duly pleaded by the plaintiff; and more so, when the plaintiff had failed to bring on record the contract between the parties on the record of the matter, the learned trial Judge held the plaint being devoid of necessary cause of action, and accordingly, granted application Exh. 22 and thereby ordered rejection of the plaint, giving rise to the pre