Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be invoked to rehear merits, re-appreciate evidence, or substitute a different view merely because another interpretation is possible.

Order on Board

1. By the present petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Civil Revision No.11 of 2026, whereby this Court disposed of the civil revision preferred by the respondents herein, holding that, considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Raipur in Commercial Suit No. 12-B/2025 was set aside, and the learned Trial Court was directed to frame a preliminary issue on the question of limitation, afford adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, and thereafter decide the said issue in accordance with law; it was further observed that if, upon recording evidence, the Trial Court arrives at a conclusion that the suit is within limitation, it shall proceed to adjudicate the suit on merits, and if the suit is found to be barred by limitation, appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, it being held that the issue of limitation, as a mixed question of law and fact, is required to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

2. The facts of the case, as presented before this Court, are that the plaintiff, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.72,35,625.05/- through its authorized power of attorney holder. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are its partners. As per the plaint, the defendants approached the plaintiff on 21.01.2016 and placed a purchase order for supply of electric poles and high mast lights, pursuant to which an advance of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid. The total value of the goods was Rs.68,39,100/- including GST, and the plaintiff claims to have supplied the material between 27.03.2016 and 10.05.2016. According to the plaintiff’s ledger, an amount of Rs.61,39,100/- remained outstanding. It is further stated that a cheque issued by the defendants towards the said amount was dishonoured, leading to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, a partial payment of Rs.30,00,000/- was made on 09.01.2017, leaving a balance of Rs.31,39,100/-. A demand notice dated 18.11.2019 was issued, and the plaintiff initially filed a civil suit on 19.12.2019, which came to be returned on 12.04.2023 for want of 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, a suit filed before the Commercial Court, Naya Raipur was rejected on 03.10.2023 for non-compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, and thereafter, upon alleged compliance, the present suit came to be filed on 21.08.2025.

3. After service of summons, the defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that, as per the plaint averments, the last payment was made on 09.01.2017 and thus the cause of action arose on that date. It was argued that the suit, being one for recovery arising out of commercial transactions, is governed by Articles 26 and 41 of the Limitation Act prescribing a limitation period of three years, and therefore the suit filed on 21.08.2025 is clearly barred by limitation. It was further contended that proceedings before forums lacking jurisdiction or rejection of plaints on technical grounds do not extend limitation. The plaintiff opposed the applications contending that the earlier plaints were rejected on technical grounds and that a fresh c