Digitally signed by 2026:CGHC:1780 SHAYNA KADRI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 11 of 2026

1 - Rahul Somani S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Somani Aged About 36 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2 - Mrs. Rekha Somani W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Somani Aged About 59 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Applicants versus

1 - Bajaj Electricals Limited Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ashwani Samal, Aged About 47 Years, S/o Shri Abhimanyu Samal, R/o 406, Wallfort Ozone, 4th Floor, Near Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, C.G. Pin

492001

2 - M/s Ramgopal Somani Station Road, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist.-

Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

3 - Ramgopal Somani S/o Late Shri Ganesh Narayan Somani Aged About 69 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani, And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

4 - Varun Kumar Somani S/o Shri Ramgopal Somani Aged About 34 Years Partners Of M/s Ramgopal Somani, And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tah.- Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

Order on Board

12/01/2026

1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicants/defendants No. 03 and 05 challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Raipur in Commercial Suit No. 12-B/2025, whereby the application filed by the present applicants as well as defendant No. 01 and 04 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation has been dismissed.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has held that the suit filed by the respondent No. 01/plaintiff is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act and that the cause of action for filing the fresh suit would be deemed to have accrued from the date of rejection of the earlier plaint, i.e., 03.10.2023, and consequently the suit instituted on 21.08.2025 was held to be within limitation.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 01/plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 72,35,625.05/- through its authorized power of attorney holder. It has been pleaded that defendant No. 01 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos. 02 to 05 are its partners. According to the plaint, the defendants approached the plaintiff company on 21.01.2016 and placed a purchase order for supply of electric poles and high mast lights, pursuant to which an advance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid. The total value of the goods to be supplied was Rs. 68,39,100/- including GST. The plaintiff claims to have supplied the material between 27.03.2016 and 10.05.2016, and as per its ledger an amount of Rs. 61,39,100/- remained outstanding. It is further pleaded that a cheque for the said amount was issued by the defendants which was dishonoured, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, on 09.01.2017, a partial payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- was made, leaving a balance amount of Rs. 31,39,100/- unpaid. A demand notice dated 18.11.2019 was issued, and thereafter the plaintiff instituted a civil suit on 19.12.2019, which was returned by the Court on 12.04.2023 for presentation before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction. The suit presented before the District Judge, Janjgir was again returned on 27.06.2023 at the admission stage on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit before the Commercial Court, Naya Raipur, which came to be rejected on 03.10.2023 for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. After al