A suit for recovery of money must be filed within the statutory limitation period of three years; if the plaint on its face shows the claim is time-barred, it must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, and legal notices cannot serve as a basis to extend limitation.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2022 in I.A.No.707 of 2019 in O.S.No.869 of 2019 passed by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, a petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 r/w 151 of CPC to reject the plaint has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.869 of 2019 filed for recovery of money of Rs.87,43,771/- with interest at 18% per annum. The suit is filed on the basis of Lease Deed dated 13.08.2007 executed between the respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner/ defendant herein for lease of the subject premises for a period of 10 years i.e. up to 12.08.2017. During the operation of lease period, the respondent vacated the premises on 31.08.2013 and handed over the same to the petitioner herein. The case of respondent is that the notice was given as per Clause No.5 which the petitioner acknowledged. As per Clause No.7 of the Lease Deed, the respondent paid service tax to a tune of Rs.10,88,776/- to the Government and for balance amount of Rs.10,88,776/-, Solvency Certificate has been obtained. At that time, the petitioner herein had falsely stated in his letter dated 13.03.2013 that he paid service tax in the letter dated 21.01.2014 and vide subsequent letter dated 21.01.2014, the petitioner asked the respondent to come forward for settlement. While delivering possession, the petitioner promised to refund security deposit of Rs.47,46,071/-. But did not do so. In spite of many requests for refund of the security deposit, there was no attempt to repay said amount. Therefore, the respondent issued legal notice dated 10.07.2017 and it was acknowledged by the petitioner on 12.07.2017. Since there was no response from the petitioner, a summary suit for recovery of Rs.87,43,771 which includes interest for 56 months, incidental charges and legal charges, has been claimed.

4. In said summary suit, the petitioner herein filed the petition under revision to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as being barred by limitation. According to the petitioner, the suit is solely filed on the basis of Lease Deed dated 13.08.2007. Said lease got terminated on 31.08.2013 when prior notice was given and the premises was vacated. Once the lease got terminated, in case the respondent had any claim for recovery of money, the same had to be within three years of vacating the leased premises i.e. by 30.08.2016. Whereas the suit is filed in the year 2018 i.e. almost after a lapse of two years of limitation period. Hence, the case of the petitioner is that the suit is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation and is therefore, liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

5. The respondent opposed the petition, claiming that it is an admitted fact that there is a security deposit with the petitioner as evidenced by the registered Lease Deed dated 13.08.2007. There is an open account maintained by the respondent with certain mutual obligations. Said account ceases or closes when the petitioner refunds the security deposit made. The summary suit is filed to recover Rs.47,46,071/- on the basis of the liability admitted under the registered Lease Deed. While it is a fact that the petitio