IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 1208 of 2025 VINAY SHARMA Versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Amit Lahoti with Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi, Advocates for the petitioner.

Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, & 3.

ORDER This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against order dated 25.09.2025 passed by Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Sheopur in Case No.RCSB - 13/2020, thereby rejecting the application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision in short are that respondents No.1, 2 & 3 have filed a suit against applicant and other defendants for recovery of Rs.30,74,814/- on the ground that the applicant was working as an employee in the Sheopur, Branch of LIC. He played fraud and made payment of certain policies which had already lapsed thereby causing a total loss of Rs.30,74,814/- As soon as, the said fraud came to the notice of LIC/plaintiffs an inhouse preliminary enquiry got done and thereafter FIR was lodged in crime No.242/2016 and a charge-sheet has been filed and a sessions trial No. 33/2017 is pending. Accordingly, suit was filed on 26.09.2020. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation.

3. It was submitted that if the date of lodging of FIR i.e. 16.07.2016 is taken as date of knowledge of fraud, even then the suit which was filed on 26.09.2020 was beyond the period of three years. Article 113 of Limitation Act provides that the period of limitation would be three years, whereas the suit was filed after four years and two months from deriving the knowledge i.e. the date of lodging of FIR.

4. Plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 filed their reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and contended that after holding the preliminary enquiry when it was clear as a moon day to the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 that applicant and other defendants have committed a fraud of Rs.30,74,814/- then an FIR No.242/2016 was lodged on 16.07.2016. Thereafter, on number of occasions notices were given to the applicant and other defendants to repay the amount, but since it was not done, therefore, the suit was filed on 26.09.2020. It was further mentioned that since applicant had received last notice on 13.08.2020 and did not deposit the defalcated amount, therefore, the cause of action arose for the last time on 13.08.2020 and accordingly, the suit was filed on 26.09.2020. It was further mentioned that Supreme Court in the case of Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 had relaxed the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, therefore, the said period of limitation has to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing civil suit.

5. By the impugned order, trial Court rejected the application by holding that question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. 6. Challenging the order passed by trial Court, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that it is true that generally a plaint should not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation, but on plain reading of entire plaint, if it is clear as moon day that suit is barred by limitation, then power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised and to buttress his contentions, counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Another Vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and Others, decided on 15.04.2025 in SLP(Civil) No.

13459/2024.

7. Per contra, revision is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. It is submitted that trial Court has rightly rejected the application on the ground that period of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Since last show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 13.08.2020 and he