$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 65/2026 TIGER RAPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Advocate.

versus A. RAJENDRAN .....Respondent Through: Counsel for Respondent (appearance not given) CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026 CM APPL. 4059/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

RFA 65/2026

3. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, Tiger Rapta, against the Judgment and decree dated 13.10.2025 of learned District Judge-04, Delhi whereby the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Leave to Defend Application filed by the Appellant in Civil Suit of the Respondent under Order XXXVII CPC, 1908, has been dismissed and the Suit for Recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- has been decreed, vide Judgment dated 13.10.2025.

4. The Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit for Recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- being the amount of two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each dated 05.02.2020, which had been issued in favour of the Respondent. The Plaintiff/Respondent asserted in the Plaint that he and the Defendant/Appellant had been meeting regularly since February, 2012 and had developed cordial and family relationship. In the month of May and June, 2017, on the request of the Appellant/Defendant, a friendly loan of Rs.9,70,000/- was given to the Appellant through the bank transfer in HDFC Bank of the Appellant. The Defendant agreed to return the loan amount in 30 months with an assurance that interest per month would be paid to the Plaintiff.

5. Thereafter, in discharge of his liability, the Appellant issued two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each dated 05.02.2020 in favour of the Plaintiff towards repayment of the aforesaid loan and interest. The two cheques on presentation were returned by the Banker. Hence, the Suit under XXXVII CPC was filed for Recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @2% per month, till it was paid.

6. The Appellant/Respondent put in his appearance and filed his Leave to Defend Application. He also filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the Suit, as being barred by limitation.

7. The learned Trial Court considered both the Application and rejected both the Applications in his common Order dated 13.10.2025 and decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff.

8. Aggrieved, the Appellant/Defendant has filed the present Appeal. The grounds of challenge are that the Suit was barred by limitation and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, has been wrongly excluded in computing the limitation period, as per Suo Motu Civil Writ Petition No. 03/2020 of the Apex Court.

9. In fact, the Limitation period expired on 04.02.2023 from the date of issue of Cheques and there was no reason to seek any relaxation. As per Para 5(ii), the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021 if any, was to be availed w.e.f. 01.03.2022.

10. In the present case, the period of remaining limitation of 01 year and 04 months, was to be added on 01.03.2022, which means that the Suit could have been filed by 01.07.2023, but it has been filed on 17.09.2024 i.e. 01 year 02 months beyond the extended period. The learned Trial Court fell in error in giving the benefit of entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The Suit was patently barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed, despite which the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.

11. It is further submitted that in the Leave to Defend Application various triable issues had been raised. There were no documents to show that the alleged amount of Rs.9.7 Lakhs was given as loan on interest, to the Appellant. In fact, his Statement of Account reflects the transfer of only Rs.4,00,000/- in the Account of the Appellant. The Appellant, had returned a total