The court affirmed that the suit was filed within the limitation period, considering the dishonoured cheque and the exclusion of time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner – defendant No.1(c) is before this Court calling in question an order 10.03.2025, passed by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-87), whereby, an application – I.A.No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, in Com.O.S.No.520/2022, comes to be rejected.

2. Heard Sri Jayaraj Gowda M.N., learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Sowbhagya D., learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The first respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the proprietor of one M/s.J.R. and Company, which is in the business of wholesale supply of steel and other allied materials. During the business transaction with one M/s.Tatra Metal Industries, a partnership firm of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as its partners, respondent No.1 – plaintiff supplies material under various invoices. The allegation is, the payments were not regularly made and the firm fell due of an amount of `35/- lakhs. The plaintiff is said to have called respondent Nos.5 and 6 to settle the entire amount, which is the payment that the plaintiff is to receive. The said payment is dodged for long time. Notices caused, go in vain. It transpires that thereafter, one Mr.Aamir Khan informs the plaintiff that M/s. Tatra Metal Industries has been dissolved and is in a new avatar as M/s.Tatra Building Material Company Private Limited. The newly formed company is said to have agreed to make the payment of `30,27,907/- after adjusting various invoices. It transpires that, on the said belief of the representation of the newly formed company, the plaintiff keep quiet for long time and then generate certain communications. The amount is not paid or the cheque that was issued gets dishonoured. Dishonouring the cheque has lead the plaintiff to file P.C.R.No.755/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The matter is pending as C.C.No.1909/2017. The plaintiff then institutes a suit in the year 2019, seeking recovery of money in O.S.No.7730/2019. The suit comes to be instituted on 25.10.2019. The matter is then transferred to the commercial Court which becomes Com.O.S.520/2022. During the subsistence of the suit in Com.O.S.520/2022, the petitioner – defendant No.1(c) files an application – I.A.No.1 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, on the score that it is beyond limitation. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that it was within limitation and even otherwise, the limitation is pure question of facts and law. The rejection of it, has driven the petitioner - defendant No.1(c) before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently contend that the last of the transactions between the parties is in the year 2014; the suit, admittedly is filed on 25.10.2019 before the civil Court and it is five years after the transaction. The limitation is 3 years and therefore, the suit ought not to be entertained by the concerned Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel of respondent No.1 - plaintiff would vehemently contend that the last of the transactions is by way of a cheque; the cheque gets dishonoured in the year 26.10.2016; the original suit was registered on 25.10.2019 and the matter was then transferred to the commercial Court and renumbered as Com.O.S.No.520/2022. For compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the matter was referred to mediation. COVID comes about and the limitation is extended. Even otherwise, he would contend that the cheque is issued in the year 2016 and therefore, it was well within limitation. He would s