IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 923 of 2025 PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA PROPRIETOR M/S BOOTCOM SYSTEMS Versus VISKRAMADITYA SINGH Appearance:

Shri Anurag Gohil - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated

22.07.2025 whereby the trial Court has rejected application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as well as application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC filed by the petitioner-defendant.

2. A suit has been filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court for recovery of amount and in the said suit the present petitioner-defendant has appeared and has taken a defense that the suit is barred by law of limitation inasmuch as the cause of action has been stated to be somewhere in the year 2019 whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2023, which is beyond the limitation period of three years.

3. Before the Court it was contended by the plaintiff that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed blanket orders relaxing the period of limitation for certain periods between 2020 to 2022 and after deducting the said period, the suit is within limitation.

4. The trial Court has held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, it is required to be adjudicated along with other issues and parties can lead evidence on the said issue along with other issues and it will be adjudicated at the time of final adjudication of the suit.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, though rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be said to be justified because for consideration of the said application the assertions of the defendants cannot be seen, but so far as rejection of application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC is concerned, as per Order 14 Rule 2 CPC such issues can be decided as preliminary issue which do not require any evidence.

6. If in the present case the plaintiff was seeking benefit of the general order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relaxing period of limitation for certain period, then it was simply a legal issue. The trial court has not considered in the entire order that what is the factual dispute in the matter of limitation which requires evidence.

7. It is settled law that such a issue can be determined as a preliminary issue, when neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law or fact has to be adjudicated for resolving the said issue.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh B. Desai vs.

Bipin Vadilal Mehta, (2006) 5 SCC 638, held that only those issues of law can be decided as preliminary issues, which fall within the ambit of Clause (a) & (b) of Order 14 Rule 2(2) of C.P.C.

9. The trial Court has not held that what is the disputed factual question that has to be adjudicated to decide the issue of limitation and therefore, the impugned order to the extent of rejection of application under Order 14 rule 2 CPC is set aside. The trial Court is directed to re-decide the said application by noting the factual dispute in the case and if there is no factual dispute then it would be open for the trial Court to decide the said issue as preliminary issue in terms of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC.

10. In the aforesaid terms, the petition is disposed off.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE nks