SEGU SUBBARAO Vs. BANDI SRINIVASULU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters are coming up for admission. Since common questions are involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions, these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) These Civil Revision Petitions are filed as against the orders made in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the revision petitioner-plaintiff in the respective suits filed on the strength of the promissory notes, where under the plaints were rejected on the ground of bar of limitation.

(3.) Sri Ramesh the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners in all these Civil Revision Petitions would contend that though the plea of acknowledgment and extension of the period of limitation had been raised, the appellate Court erred in rejecting the same, instead of directing the original Court to number the suits and if necessary to try the question of acknowledgment also along with the other issues. The learned counsel would also submit that I.P.No.13 of 1999 was a petition filed under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, a debtor's petition and the right to sue automatically would be postponed unless and until such proceedings are finally determine by the Insolvency Court. The learned counsel would also maintain that even otherwise A.S.No.64 of 2003 is pending on the file of the District Judge, Kadapa and in this view of the matter also the rejection of the plaints on the ground of bar of limitation cannot be sustained. The counsel would also contend that in the light of the language employed in order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of the Civil Procedure it being not a case of clear bar of limitation, the same being mixed question of fact and law, the rejection is bad.