IMPORTANT POINT
The rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation should be based on the allegations in the plaint and should be decided after trial and not at the threshold.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer: Original Side Appeal (CAD) filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, to set aside the fair and decretal dated 19.08.2021 and made in Application No. 2087 of 2021 in C.S. No. 72 of 2020.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaintiff is on Appeal.

2. The suit was launched by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,57,91,638/- with interest at 18% from the date of plaint till date of realization. The short facts that led to the filing of the suit are as follows:

3. The defendant called for a tender for purchase of certain machineries for the Industrial Training Institutes run by it. The total value of the machineries was about Rs. 6,86,93,549/-. Orders were placed on 06.06.2012 for supply of the machineries.

4. The plaintiff/appellant herein had supplied machineries worth Rs. 4,97,14,956/- and the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 2,39,23,318/-. The balance amount was not paid. This led to the plaintiff filing a Writ Petition in WP No. 11061 of 2014 seeking a Mandamus to dispose of the representation dated 13.03.2014, wherein he had claimed payment of the balance amount due for the machineries supplied by him. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the defendant to consider the representation of the petitioner. Consequent upon the same, the representation of the petitioner was disposed of on 07.01.2015.

5. It is claimed in the plaint that the defendant disposed of the representation stating that proceedings under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act were initiated and therefore, the payments could not be made immediately. Thereafter, after prolonged correspondence, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff on 03.06.2019 acknowledging the liability and stating that the amount will be disbursed only after getting necessary permission from the higher Authorities. There was also another letter dated 19.09.2018, wherein, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had acknowledged the liability to pay the balance of Rs. 2,57,91,638/-. Relying upon these two letters and contending that there was an acknowledgement to pay, the plaintiff filed the suit on 06.12.2019.

6. Pending suit an application was filed seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as the purchase order was made as early as on 06.06.2012 and the machineries were supplied in the year 2012 itself. The learned Single Judge after going through the documents, particularly the two letters dated 19.09.2018 and 03.06.2019, concluded that these letters would not amount to an acknowledgment of liability, since they have emanated after the expiry of the original period of limitation. After recording the said finding, the learned Judge found that suit as filed seeking recovery of money is barred by limitation. This led to the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Hence this Appeal.

7. We have heard Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs. A.L. Ganthimathi, for the appellant and Mr. R. Bala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that while deciding an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to see only the allegations in the plaint and the plaint documents. Even though it is open to the Court to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation, such rejection cannot depend on a decision or interpretation of the effect of a plaint document. A Court can reject the plaint on the ground of limitation only if it is on the face of it barred by limitation, nothing other than the allegations in the plaint can be looked into by the Court while rejecting the plaint on the