HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.789 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 13-03-2026 Between:

Mr. Ammireddy Bhadraiah ... Petitioner AND Mr. Gajji Ashok Kumar ... Respondent

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, (for short ‘trial Court’) in O.S. (SR) No.227 of 2025 (sic. 2026) dated

02.03.2026.

2. Heard Ms. Mrudula Sarampally, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is erroneous and unsustainable. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The trial Court could not have pre judged the case even when the petitioner - plaintiff has specifically pleaded regarding limitation in paragraph No.5 of the plaint i.e., Cause of action. It was pleaded that the interest amount has to be paid by the respondent on the loan amount advanced by the petitioner from 01.04.2023. Thus, the limitation for filing of the suit commences from 01.04.2023 and not from 01.04.2021.

4. The suit for recovery of money was filed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the respondent - defendant, wherein, it is averred that, the petitioner has advanced an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) on 01.04.2021 to the respondent; the respondent promised to return the amount with accrued interest @ 1.75% per month on 01.04.2023; the respondent paid interest till 01.04.2023, thereafter he failed to repay the amount; respondent issued bond in favour of the petitioner with receipt No.SG/TS/00186 dated 01.04.2023; respondent also failed to pay the interest @1.75% per month from 01.04.2023 to 23.01.2026 which accumulated to Rs.6,07,833/- (Rupees six lakhs seven thousand eight hundred and thirty three only) and total amount payable by the respondent to the petitioner is Rs.16,07,833/-

(Rupees sixteen lakhs seven thousand eight hundred and thirty three only), out of which Rs.10,00,000/- is principal amount and Rs.6,07,833/- is the accrued interest.

5. The impugned docket order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the trial Court reads as under:

“As per the plaint contents, the plaintiff advanced Rs.10 lakhs to the defendant. On receipt of the said amount, the defendant issued a bond in favour of the plaintiff with receipt No.SG/TS/00186. It appears that, the defendant is in construction business. It is not forthcoming from the pleadings of the plaint whether the plaintiff advanced Rs.10 lakhs towards investment in the construction business of the defendant or the plaintiff lent the amount to the defendant. The said bond vide receipt No.SG/TS/00186 is also not disclosing the nature of the money advanced, rather it looks like a investment for a period of 24 months with maturity date 01.04.2023. Rate of interest is mentioned at 1.75%. This Court returned the plaint for about two times on objection to submit proof of payment of the interest from 01.04.2021 to 01.04.2023, but the plaint was resubmitted without compliance of said objection. The transaction of advancing amount by the plaintiff to the defendant was commenced on 01.04.2021. There is no other document which extended the time for repayment of the said advanced amount. There is also no document showing the renewal of the bond bearing receipt No.SG/TS/00186. It is mentioned in the plaint that, the defendant paid interest till 01.04.2023 and calculated the period of limitation from the said date, though the initial transaction of initial advancement was taken place on 01.04.2021. The period between 01.04.2021 to 01.04.2023 shall also be computed for the purpose of limitation in filing the suit. The plaint at para No.7 does not show under which provision the suit is filed within limitation. The plaintiff sought for the decree for a sum of Rs.16,07,833/- including principal and interest. The period of limitation prescribed for recovery of money on pro