THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3699 OF 2011 Dated:26-11-2014
Between
M/s. Sujana Capital Services Ltd., Regd. Office at No.7, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad, rep., by its Director Y.S.L. Prasad and two others ... PETITIONERS AND M/s. Fincity Investments Private Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having Regd. Office at 11-17, Flat No.203, Tulasi Apartments, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad-72, rep., by its Director D. Gopalakrishna Raju .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3699 OF 2011 ORDER:
The respondent filed O.S No. 189 of 2003 in the Court of X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) , C i t y Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners for recovery of certain amount. On receipt of summons, the petitioners filed I.A No. 417 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC, with a prayer to reject the plaint. The ground pleaded by them was that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 21-07-2011. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
It is true that a plaint can be rejected in case it is found that it is filed beyond the period of limitation. However, that conclusion must be arrived, on the basis of undisputed facts in the plaint. As a matter of fact, the trial Court itself can reject the plaint in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Where however the plaint contains certain particulars which if true bring the suit within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected. At the most, the defendant can insist that the question of limitation can be dealt with as a separate issue. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter.
The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court shall frame an issue on the question of limitation.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 26-11-2014 ks