IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9672-2025

DECIDED ON: 22.12.2025

SHANKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ANOTHER

.....PETITIONERS

VERSUS

AGGARWAL PUMPS AND PIPES

.....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate

for the petitioners.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are defendants before the Commercial Court, challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Commercial Court, Ambala, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act and Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking

rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation, was dismissed.

2. The respondent instituted a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.18,37,925/- along with interest, alleging supply of goods and outstanding liability against the petitioners. After entering appearance, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that from the averments contained in the plaint itself, the cause of action had lastly arisen on 20.12.2021 and that even after excluding the period spent in pre-

institution mediation, the suit filed on 15.02.2025 was barred by limitation. The learned Commercial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application, holding that the issue of limitation could not be conclusively decided at the threshold.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned order, the pleadings contained in the plaint and the legal position governing the exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. At the stage of considering an application for rejection of plaint, the Court is required to confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence set up by the defendants or disputed factual issues cannot be examined at this stage. Rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation is permissible only when the suit is ex facie barred by law on a plain reading of the plaint itself.

5. In the present case, the plaint contains pleadings with regard to supply of goods over a period of time, outstanding balance, issuance of legal notice and initiation of pre-institution mediation proceedings under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act. The plaint also contains a specific plea regarding the period during which the plaintiff remained engaged in pre- institution mediation proceedings and seeks exclusion of the said period for the purpose of limitation. Whether the said period is liable to be excluded and whether the suit is ultimately within limitation cannot be determined without appreciation of evidence. Such an exercise is clearly beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

6. The contention of the petitioners that limitation is a pure question of law in the present case cannot be accepted. Though limitation is governed by statutory provisions, its applicability in a given case often depends upon factual aspects such as the nature of transactions, continuity of cause of action and applicability of statutory exclusions. Where the plaint itself raises such factual aspects, the Court cannot undertake a premature adjudication by rejecting the plaint at the threshold.

7. This Court also finds that the learned Commercial Court has considered the rival submissions and has applied the settled principles governing Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. From the record and the impugned order itself, it is evident that no case for interference is made out. Since the revision petition is being dismissed at the threshold on the basis of the impugned order and settled legal principles, issuance of