* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of order: 12^th September, 2023 + C.R.P. 143/2023 & CM APPL. 28982/2023 MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput, Advocate along with petitioner in person versus SUNITA GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V. K. Sharma, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“a) be pleased to set aside the Order dated 23.02.2023, as passed by Sh. Arun Goel, Hon’ble Additional District Judge-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS. No. 374 of 2018 titled as “Sunita Gupta Vs. Mukesh Kumar”;

b) be pleased to dismiss the suit CS. No. 374 of 2018 titled as “Sunita Gupta Vs. Mukesh Kumar” pending in the Court of Sh. Arun Goel, Hon’ble Additional District Judge-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi;

c) be pleased to grant any other or further relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the petition in favour of the Revisionist.”

2. The factual matrix of the case is recapitulated herein below: a) The petitioner i.e., the defendant before the learned Trial Court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 143/2023 Page 1 of 11 had purchased some goods on credit from the respondent i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. In consequence to the said purchase, certain invoices were raised in the name of the petitioner by the respondent.

b) Upon failure of the petitioner to make payments against certain invoices, the respondent i.e., the plaintiff, filed a Suit seeking recovery of Rs. 30,38,753/-, against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, thereby, seeking rejection of the plaint of the respondent on the ground of limitation.

c) However, the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23^rd February 2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit bearing CS. No. 374/2018.

d) Being aggrieved by the above stated impugned order, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by way of the instant civil revision petition.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court had failed to take into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the instant dispute.

4. It is submitted that the Suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, since the same is barred by the limitation. The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes that a suit for recovery has to be filed within a period of 3 years from the date of the last cause of action.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 143/2023 Page 2 of 11

5. It is submitted that the respondent in her Suit has concealed material facts. The respondent ought to have computed the limitation period from the date of delivery of goods or from the date of expiry of the period of credit which accrues the cause of action in her favour, instead the limitation period computed by the respondent commences from the date of last of payment made by the petitioner in the favour of the respondent. The said calculation of limitation period is contrary to the settled law.

6. It is submitted that the respondent in her Suit has wrongly claimed the account to be a running account, thereby, illegally calculating the principle amount and subsequently the limitation period which certainly bars the respondent from instituting her Suit.

7. It is submitted that upon a bare perusal of the various invoices annexed to the plaint, it is evident that till 13^th April 2015, the petitioner made all payments to the respondent on invoice to invoice basis, and no interest was ever charged thereupon. Hence, the respondent cannot claim the status of the acc