M/S. RADNIK EXPORTS & ORS. v. M/S. STL GLOBAL LIMITED

14. Learned counsel for the Respondent per contra argued that applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were filed by Petitioner No. 2 only and that it is a well-settled law that for rejection of plaint, only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed along with it have to be looked into. It was also argued that limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and hence a triable issue, after the parties lead their evidence. Relying on the judgments on this issue, Respondent refuted the contention of the Petitioners that the suits filed before the Courts in Delhi are fresh suits and asserted that the Respondent is entitled to exclusion of the period from 28.04.2009 till 02.06.2015 by virtue of provisions of Section 14 of the Act, as the earlier suits were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith.

15. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Trial Court agreed with the submissions made by the Respondent and dismissed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on two-fold grounds: (a) for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be seen; and (b) limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. The Trial Court came to a conclusion from a perusal of the plaints, that the objections raised by the Petitioners in the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, cannot be decided without evidence.

16. Reiterating the arguments urged before the Trial Court, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the earlier suits were filed against M/s. Radnik Exports Company with its two Directors as parties for recovery of Rs.4,52,471/- and Rs.19,08,972.66/- respectively, while the suits before the Trial Court at Delhi were filed against M/s. Radnik Exports Company, a partnership concern with partners as party-Defendants. Since these were fresh suits, Respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act and the suits being barred by limitation, the plaints ought to be rejected.

17. It is contended that the Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the Respondent had not followed the procedure under Order VII Rule 10-A CPC for return of the plaint. The directions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana were clear that only if the plaints were presented in the appropriate Court within four weeks of the order, parties will not raise objections on the limitation. The Trial Court, therefore, ought to have examined the date on which the plaints were returned and filed before it at the threshold, instead of treating it as a triable issue. No doubt, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts requiring trial, however, where the facts are undisputed, as in this case, applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be allowed. Respondent had averred in paragraph 11 of the plaint that cause of action for filing the suits arose in 2007 and 2008 and therefore, there was no dispute with regard to limitation. In order to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Act, it is necessary that the earlier proceedings alleged to be prosecuted in good faith are between the same parties and for the same reliefs, while in the present case, neither the parties were same nor the reliefs claimed.

18. Learned counsel for the Respondent, supporting the impugned Order, argues that there is no infirmity in the said order. Insofar as C.S. No. 8957/2016 is concerned, the suit was initially filed before the District Court, Faridabad, Haryana, which was subsequently directed to be returned with endorsement by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 18.02.2015, granting liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court in Delhi, within 4 weeks from the return of the plaint. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the plaint and the original documents were ordered to be returned by learned Civil Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 26.05.2015 and were actually returned by endorsement dated 02.06.2015. Respondent filed the suit before this Court within time on 29.06.2015. However, on account of enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the suit was filed before the said Court. With respect to C.S. No. 8339/2016, it is submitted that the suit was returned to the Respondent by endorsement dated 02.06.2015 and was filed before the Trial Court at Delhi on 29.06.2015 within the time granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Therefore, the contention is that Respondent is entitled to benefit of the exclusion of these periods under Section 14 of the Act and assuming that the Petitioners wish to contest the date of return of the plaints and their subsequent filings or even on the question of the reliefs claimed in the suits and/or the parties thereto, these are triable issues and on these grounds, plaints cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

19. I have heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and examined their rival contentions.

20. It is an undisputed position that Respondent had filed two suits for recovery, before the District Court, Faridabad, Haryana in which the Petitioners had filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suits. The applications were dismissed on 24.10.2013, however, in Revision Petitions, filed by the Petitioners before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the High Court vide order dated 18.02.2015 directed return of the plaints to the Respondent, to be filed in the appropriate Court, within 4 weeks from the date of the endorsement by the District Court, with a further direction that if the suits were filed within the said period, neither party shall raise the question of limitation and the suits shall be decided as per law.

21. Petitioners filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaints on several grounds, as aforementioned. The applications have been dismissed by the Trial Court by a common order dated 05.08.2017, which has been assailed before this Court. Section 14(1) of the Act, reads as follows:

22. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 169, the Supreme Court held as under:

23. From the reading of the aforesaid passage, it is clear that the purpose of enacting Section 14 of the Act is to give relief to a litigant, who approaches a wrong Forum as this is in the nature of a beneficial provision in the Limitation Act. It is an established principle of interpretation of a Statute that one must give such a construction to a provision of Statute which furthers the intention of the Legislature behind its enactment. Therefore, if the Plaintiff in a given case is able to show that while he had wrongly instituted proceedings in a Court, but had prosecuted the same with due diligence and in good faith, benefit of exclusion of the period for which the suit remained pending in the earlier Forum must accrue to the Plaintiff, construing the provisions of Section 14(1) liberally.

24. It is equally true that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the question that arises before this Court is whether the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that limitation being a mixed question of law and facts cannot be decided at the threshold. Law on the parameters required to examine an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is no longer res integra. Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the accompanying documents and the defence raised in the written statement is wholly irrelevant. The Supreme Court in case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1313, held as follows:

25. I may usefully refer to a passage from the judgment of this Court in Tilak Raj Bhagat v. Ranjit Kaur & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1675, which is as under:

26. It is also settled that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments in the plaint have to be taken to be true and correct and therefore, applying all the principles settled by judgments, as aforementioned, it is only when the averments in the plaint indicate the cause of action being barred by limitation that the Court can reject the plaint at the initial stage, which means that it must be on plain and ex facie reading of the plaint.

27. The plaints have been placed on record by the Petitioners. The averments and the narrative in the plaints show that Respondent has narrated all the necessary facts of how the cause of action has allegedly arisen for filing the suits for recovery against the Petitioners. Respondent has mentioned the dates from when the cause of action commenced in the respective suits and also given a chronology of dates and events from the time of filing the suits before the District Court, Faridabad till the filing of the Revision Petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the order passed by the High Court. Significantly, Respondent has also mentioned the dates on which the Trial Court had rendered an endorsement for return of the plaints and the subsequent dates of filing of the suits, from which the present Revision Petitions arise. The orders of the respective Courts have also been placed on record. In the opinion of this Court, from a plain reading of the plaints on a mere demurer, it cannot be said at this stage that Respondent has failed to plead a cause of action or that the plaints are so outrightly barred by limitation, that nothing remains to be tried or argued by the Respondent.

28. Petitioners have raised objections to the maintainability of the suits on the ground of limitation and urged the Trial Court to reject the plaints contending that benefit of Section 14 of the Act cannot be given to the Respondent. The said claim is predicated on the plea that the present suits are fresh suits as they were not filed in accordance with the liberty granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or within the time permitted to do so. Petitioners have also raised a plea that the present suits are between different parties and seek reliefs different from the ones in the earlier suits.

29. The Trial Court, in my view, has rightly held that these issues cannot be decided at the threshold and require evidence. It would well be open for the Petitioners to lead evidence to support their plea of the suits being barred by limitation and the Respondent would have the opportunity to lead evidence to show otherwise. Since this Court is unable to conclude from an ex facie reading of the plaints that they are barred by limitation, no error has been committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

30. Insofar as the judgment in Hanamanthappa and Another (supra), relied upon by the Petitioners is concerned, the short issue before the Supreme Court was an objection by the Petitioner/ Defendant that the Plaintiff had, after the return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court having territorial jurisdiction, materially altered the same, without seeking permission for amendment. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that plaint cannot be dismissed always on the ground that Plaintiff made averments which do not find mention in the original plaint presented in the wrong Court, as an amendment can always be sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and at best, it can be treated as a fresh plaint and matter can proceed in accordance with law. In the present cases, it is only an allegation of the Petitioners that the Respondent has altered the plaints and on this ground, rejection of the plaints is sought under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Trial Court has rightly held that this would be an arguable issue and on this ground alone, at this stage, plaints cannot be rejected.

31. The judgment in Alphabetics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) passed by this Court holds that under Order VII Rule 10-A CPC, the Court returning the plaint is required to intimate its decision to the Plaintiff to enable it to take appropriate steps in the matter and is wholly inapplicable to the controversy involved in the present case.

32. In Deena (Dead) Through LRs (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down that the main factor which would influence the Court in extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Act to a litigant, would be that the prosecution was with due diligence and in good faith. There can be no quarrel with the binding dicta of the Supreme Court. In fact, the whole claim of the Respondent before the Trial Court is that it was prosecuting the suits before the District Court, Faridabad with due diligence and in good faith. Trial Court has dismissed the applications of the Petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only on the ground that limitation being a question of facts and law would require evidence. This judgment, therefore, does not come to the aid of the Petitioners in seeking setting aside of the impugned order by the Trial Court.

33. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Revisions Petitions are dismissed, upholding the impugned order dated 05.08.2017.

34. Revision petitions along with pending applications are, accordingly, disposed of.