Between
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3203 OF 2014 Dated:07-11-2014
B.J.A.S. Murthy AND M/s. AMSRI Builders, a partnership firm, having its office at ... PETITIONER #9-1-164, 5th Floor, AMSRI Plaza, S.D Road, Secunderabad, rep., by its Managing Partner, U. Srinivas and two others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3203 OF 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner filed the suit OSSR No. 11834 of 2013 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.42,60,000/-. The plaint was returned by the trial Court on 13-02-2014 by raising certain objections including the one of limitation. The petitioner re-presented the plaint by offering certain explanation. The plaint was once again returned on 01-07-2014. Hence, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Heard Ms. K. Mamata Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The dispute is only about compliance with objection No.5 which is about limitation. The paragraph in the plaint in relation to limitation reads as under:
“The Suit transaction took place in the month of July and August 2009 and the limitation got extended when the Defendants issued a cheque No’s 524415 and 524414 dated: 04.08.2011 and 23.11.2011 for legal discharge of Debt to the Plaintiff and the same were returned to the complainant along with Cheque Return Memo dated 25-11-2011 issued by the Corporation Bank, specifying and making an endorsement on the said Cheque as “ACCOUNT FREEZED” and as such the present suit is filed within limitation.”
The civil Court is not only entitled but also under obligation to examine the question of limitation on its own accord, as provided for under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. However, it is only the contents of the plaint that needs to be taken into account. This Court is of the view that the averments in para VIII of the plaint prima facie indicate that the suit is within limitation. If the defendants have any different version, they can raise the same in the written statement. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to accept the plea of the petitioner as regards limitation in the context of numbering the suit. This observation shall not be treated as a final pronouncement on the question of limitation.
The C.R.P is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 07-11-2014 ks