The court affirmed that dismissal based on limitation or jurisdiction concerns must be substantiated and that the matters raised necessitate a trial.

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE IA NO. GA 3 of 2025 IN CS NO. 152 of 2024 SEEMA AGARWAL VS ASHOK CHAUDHRY For the Plaintiff : Mr. Varun Kothari, Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Ms. Urvashi Jain, Ms. Sreeja Chakraborty, ...... Advocates For the Defendant : Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Mr. Ayan Dutta, Mr. Bimalendu Das, Ms.ShomritaDas ………Advocates Heard on : 17.07.2025 Judgment on : 17th July, 2025 Arindam Mukherjee, J:

1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) filed by the sole defendant in a suit for recovery of money said to have been lent and advanced. The defendant has attacked the plaint mainly on three following grounds:-

i) According to the averments in the plaint the money provided to the defendant is spread over several years i.e. between 2009 and 2016. The last amount was advanced in 2016. Each disbursement, according to the defendant, amounts to separate transaction and cannot be said to be part of a single transaction on the basis of the averments in the plaint. The defendant also says that the plaint is silent as to when the money given as loan is to be returned. It only speaks of payment of interest after each four months. The money which has been lent prior to 2016 on having not been repaid is clearly hit by the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 since they are separate and independent transaction. The plaintiff cannot claim recovery of such amount;

ii) So far as the last tranche of disbursement is concerned, the plaintiff says that the repayments shown for the purpose of the limitation being extended cannot also be said to be payment to the defendant as they were credited in the account of the plaintiff’s husband who is a separate entity;

iii) Since no payment has been made within three years from 2016 to the defendant either on account of interest or towards part payment of the loan amount, the recovery of the last disbursement amount is also hit by the provisions of limitation;

iv) The defendant then says that the plaintiff has stated that the money given to the defendant is by way of investment. If it is an investment then the suit was required to be filed in the Commercial Division of this Court in view of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 .

2. The defendant therefore says that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation and in any event cannot be filed in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. As a consequence thereof, the plaint is required to be rejected and the suit should be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff, on the other hand, says that taking the averments made in the plaint as a whole it is clear that there has been continuous transactions between 2009 and 2016 in connection with disbursement of the loan amount and receipt of interest from the defendant. The amounts were disbursed as a part of a single agreement which is spread over a period of time. Assuming without admitting that the disbursement do not form part of a single agreement then also the same being a series of transactions between the same parties wherein the continuous disbursement and receipt of interest has taken place, no part of the plaintiff’s claim can be said to be barred by limitation. So far as the period beyond 2016 it is clear that two payments have been made by the defendant to the plaintiff and as such the suit having been filed within three years from the last payment cannot be said to be ex facie barred by limitation as sought to be contended by the defendant. So far as the other point is concerned, the plaintiff says that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a transaction between merchants nor there is any mercantile document between the parties for which it will come under Section 2(c)(i) of the 2015 Act. Mo