OMJI DAWAI WALA Vs. DEERAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the revision petitions, the petitioners are same and have raised a common issue that the civil suits for recovery of money filed by the respondent-plaintiffs are barred by law of limitation, hence, both petitions heard together and being decided by this common order. The petitioners moved separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC before the trial court in both suits and the trial court has dismissed their application vide order dtd. 25/6/2021 passed separately in both suits. Hence, petitioners have filed these two revision petitions, assailing the order dtd. 25/6/2021 invoking of scope of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Petitioners have placed on record copy of the amended plaint and receipts acknowledging the deposition of amount by the plaintiffs in the petitioner-firm, which are referred in the plaint. On perusal of plaint, it transpires that plaintiffs have instituted civil suit for recovery of money of Rs.16,43,050.00 and 8,87,167/-as also claiming interest thereupon from the defendants jointly and severely. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos 2 to 4 have been alleged to be its partners, who are petitioners here in these revision petitions. Respondentplaintiffs have averred in their plaint that partner of firm, Mr. Rajesh Jain, Defendant No. 2 offered and assured the plaintiff that if they will deposit money in defendant-firm, amount would remain safe and interest would be paid on the deposited amount. On such assurance, plaintiffs deposited money before the defendantfirm, for which, written receipts acknowledging the deposited amount were issued by and on before the firm to the plaintiffs. Time to time interest was also paid by the defendant and entry of of such payments were made on the flip side of the receipts. According to the pleadings of plaint, the plaintiffs deposited money and defendants paid interest, during the period 2013 to 2015, the specific dates are maintained in plaint. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiffs demanded their deposited money and due interest, vide notice dtd. 10/8/2020 but defendants despite demand, did not repaid their deposit money and interest, hence the civil suits for recovery of money have been instituted on 15/4/2021, amended plaint filed on 14/6/2021. It has been specifically averred that the plaintiff had deposited their money with the defendants as a deposit and defendant-firm had issued receipts, acknowledging the deposition of money. The plaintiff put demand from the defendants to refund their deposited money, first time vide notice dtd. 10/8/2020, hence the civil suits for recovery of their deposited money with interest, filed on 15/4/2021 is well within limitation. No reference of any specific provision of Limitation Act has been made in the plaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners have made a submission that by perusal of the pleadings of plaint as a whole, it stands clear that the respondent-plaintiffs have pleaded that they deposited money in different installments time to time before the petitioner-defendants-firm and deposit receipts were issued in their favour by the petitioner-firm. In the plaint, deposition have been alleged for the period 2013 to 2015 on various dates. It has also been pleaded that some interest was also paid by the petitioner-firm to the plaintiffs on their deposited amount, which has also been alleged in year 2015 but the civil suits for recovery of deposited money, have been instituted after expiry of three years on 15/4/2021, amended suits filed on 14/6/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the plaint, plaintiffs have alleged that they demand to refund their deposited amount with interest by way of issuing a legal notice dtd. 10/8/2020. The legal notice was served on the defendants on next date 11/8/2020, hence, the plaintiffs alleged to accrue the cause of action from the date of demand and alleged to file the present civil suit within limitation of three years.