A court's grant of liberty to file a fresh application or suit does not bypass the statutory limitation period, as limitation applies strictly under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regardless of any permission granted for procedural amendments.

CM APPL. 363/2026 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, application is disposed of.

C.R.P. 3/2026 & CM APPL. 362/2026 (stay)

1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioners/ revisionists assailing the order dated 11th December 2025, passed by the Additional District Judge-01 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Civil Suit no. CIV DJ/8545/2016.

2. By the impugned order, an application moved by plaintiff (therein), under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking to implead the petitioners/ revisionists and respondent no. 9 as defendant nos. 8, 9 & 10 in the suit, was allowed.

3. The suit was permitted to be amended qua newly added defendant nos. 8-10.

4. Counsel for revisionists submits that the cause of action, if any, against the petitioners/ revisionists and respondent no.9 would arise on the date of knowledge of the subsequent sale by defendant nos.1-6 to them.

5. As per plaintiffs, they became aware of the subsequent sale through the written statement which was filed by defendant nos.1-6 in September 2012.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5245/2015 was moved by plaintiffs in March 2015 under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which was withdrawn on account of typographical error on 18th November 2015. The said order of 18th November 2015 noted that plaintiff wanted to move a fresh Interlocutory Application (‘I.A.’) and, therefore, permitted to withdraw I.A. No. 5245/2015. It was stated in the order that “plaintiff may move fresh I.A. with copy to learned counsel for defendant as well as learned counsel for proposed defendants”.

7. Considering that this liberty was given by Court on 18th November 2015, a fresh I.A. was moved on 12th May 2016, which was finally adjudicated by the impugned order dated 11th December 2025, where condonation of delay was allowed by the District Judge.

8. Counsel for revisionists points out that, as per the record, plaintiff had received a copy of written statement on 08th October 2012. Therefore, he contends that in any event, even if liberty had been granted on 18th November 2015, the limitation would have expired under the Limitation Act, 1963 on 08th October 2015. Therefore, firstly, on the date when the withdrawal was made of the earlier application, the limitation had already been exhausted, and secondly, in any event, liberty granted by the Court would not revive the limitation period.

9. In support of this contention, counsel for revisionists relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Arifa v. Abhiman Apartment Coop. Housing Society Ltd. , (2025) 10 SCC 700, where in a similar context, pursuant to liberty granted by the High Court to file a comprehensive suit a subsequent suit was initiated, it was held that the subsequent suit was barred by limitation even though liberty had been granted by the High Court to institute a fresh suit.

10. The Supreme Court in paragraph 8 stated as under:

“8. In the impugned judgment [Abhiman Apartment Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Kasim Sab Peersab Nadaf, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 1578] reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, the High Court has categorically found that the suit was barred by limitation. The specific averment regarding the cause of action, as stated in the plaint was extracted, which was the date on which the High Court had dismissed the second appeal and reserved such liberty. The limitation would commence from the date of execution of the agreements, the first two of which were in the year 1998. Though the two sale deeds in favour of the