Delhi High Court
C.R.P./291/2026 of SANJEEV YADAV Vs SEEMA on 24 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010459882026 + C.R.P. 291/2026 & CM APPL. 66206-66207/2026 SANJEEV YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Advocates. versus SEEMA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R %
$~50
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010459882026
+
C.R.P. 291/2026 & CM APPL. 66206-66207/2026
SANJEEV YADAV
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr. Sunil K.
Mittal, Advocates.
versus
SEEMA
.....Respondent
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
24.09.2026
1. This petition has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 04th May 2026 passed by ADJ, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi in CS No.495/2018, dismissing the application filed by petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), contending that the suit was barred by limitation.
2. A suit for recovery of sum of Rs.45,00,000/- was filed, which, as per the plaint, was provided by the husband of respondent/plaintiff in the month of January 2013, requesting for a loan for a period of three years, since petitioner/defendant was facing financial problems. The amount was paid and transferred through Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) from the account of proprietor firm into the petitioner/defendant’s account. At the time of advancing the loan, respondent/plaintiff stated that the petitioner/defendant had agreed to repay it within a period of three years.
3. However, despite that, when a request was made after three years, the said repayment was not made. Legal Notice dated 25th April 2018 was sent, to which a reply dated 18th May 2018 was also received, denying the liability to pay. Accordingly, the suit was filed and rejection had been sought by way of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
4. The mere fact that a categorical assertion has been made in the plaint that the loan was advanced for three years and the petitioner/defendant had agreed to repay the same within a period of three years, would shift the limitation period from one under Article 19 of Limitation Act, 1963 to that under Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963.
5. The Court draws its view from the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Ashok Kumar v. Kartar Singh 2017:DHC:3422.
6. Counsel for petitioner states that in the facts of that case, there was an acknowledgment of the repayment cheque, which was given after three years and, therefore, payability was on a specific date from which limitation was held to commence.
7. In the opinion of this Court, when a specific plea has been taken by respondent/plaintiff that the loan was provided for three years and the payment requests were made after three years, it will be a question of fact which will have to be considered by the Trial Court.
8. Therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11 has been rightly dismissed. However, the Trial Court will formulate a preliminary issue in this regard.
9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in accordance with the above directions.
10. In this view, the finding given in paragraph no.6 of impugned order will, therefore, not operate and a fresh view will be taken by the Trial Court after evidence has been led on the preliminary issue.
11. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/ak/sp