REGISTRAR Vs. RADHESHYAM BHAGWANDAS SOMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the non-applicant.

(2.) The revision challenges the order dtd. 20/4/2022 passed below Exh.10, an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") on the ground that the plaint was liable to be rejected being barred by the limitation. The same has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order considering the fact that the demand was made on 2/11/2019 which was denied on 4/12/2019, and therefore, as limitation is a mixed questions of fact and law the same cannot be decided on the basis of the plaint averments.

(3.) Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the applicants submits, that the claim laid in the plaint is for the period from 1/4/2002 to 31/3/2003, in respect of 10% profit done and for a claim of work done sometime prior to 4 07.2002, for which a recommendation is claimed to have been made on 5/7/2002 to the Comptroller who in turn has forward the same to the Vice Chancellor on 22/11/2004. It is therefore submitted, by relying upon State of Uttaranchal And Another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari And Others, (2013) 12 SCC 179 and Surjeet Singh Sahni Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 249, that based upon the plaint averments itself, the claim was barred by limitation and the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., ought to have been allowed.