CRP/2718/2023 of M/S. EASTERN METEC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/S. INDIAN HYDRAULICS AND PNEUMATICS COMPANY on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (heard under Section 115 CPC) against the order dated 08.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in COS No.1161 of 2022 (O.S.No.2291 of 2019) on the file of the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.2291 of 2019 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking for the relief of recovery of money along with interest. This suit was subsequently transferred to the file of Commercial Court, Egmore and it was renumbered as C.O.S.No.1161 of 2022. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.1161 of 2022 seeking for rejection of plaint on the ground that the relief sought for in the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and that the same can be decided only after the parties let in evidence and it will be considered at the time of disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. A suit came to be filed against the petitioner/defendant by two partners of M/s.Indian Hydraulics and Pneumatics Company in O.S.No.6410 of 2014 on the file of XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for recovery of money along with interest. This suit was filed as a summary suit. The petitioner/defendant filed an application for leave to defend and a ground was raised by the petitioner/defendant to the effect that the suit itself is barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, since the persons, who have instituted the suit belong to an unregistered firm. The stand taken by the petitioner/defendant was rejected and the application seeking for leave to defend was dismissed and consequently, it resulted in the decree passed in O.S.No.6410 of 2014 dated 16.12.2015.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A.S.No.278 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner/defendant. This appeal came to be allowed by judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 mainly on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, since the firm in question is an unregistered firm and the firm was attempting to enforce a contract entered into which resulted in the amount due and payable to the firm and therefore, the suit itself is barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Pursuant to the above judgment, the suit in O.S.No.2291 of 2019 came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff after the firm got itself registered. The suit was filed on the very same cause of action for which the earlier suit was filed in O.S.No.6410 of 2014. The petitioner/defendant filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC primarily on the ground that the relief is hopelessly barred by limitation.

6. The primary issue involved in the present case revolves around Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act. Whether the time spent by the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the earlier suit can be excluded while calculating the period of limitation is an issue which should be gone into while dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioner/defendant. If time can be excluded under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, the suit will be within time and if the time cannot be excluded on the ground that the earlier suit was not prosecuted in a bona fide manner, the suit will be barred by limitation. Submissions were made on either side revolving around only this issue.

7. The Court below, while dealing with the application, has not even gone into this issue and has merely made an observation that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, which can be dealt with only after recording evidence. The Court below ought to have dealt with the grounds raised and it should have seen as to whether Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act will come into play to save the period of limitation in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Since the Court below has not gone into this issue, it will not be appropriate for this Court to deal with the same in the present revision. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Court below and remand the matter back to the file of the Commercial Court to deal with this specific issue and pass final orders in the interlocutory application. In the result, the order dated 08.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.1161 of 2022 (O.S.No.2291 of 2019) on the file of the District Judge, Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed. The application is remitted back to the file of the Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai, with a direction to consider the application on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both sides and final orders shall be passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.1161 of 2022 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm To The District Judge, Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai. Civil Revision Petition No.2718 of 2023 13.10.2026