1 2025:CGHC:6223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 97 of 2024 • M/s Ashish Group Of Industries Through Proprietor Ashish Agrawal S/o Dilip Agrawal, Aged About 29 Years, Transporter, R/o Bajar Para, Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • Food Corporation of India Through Area Manager, Indian Food Corporation Maharana Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 04/02/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. There is delay of about 18 days. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.02.05 15:37:56 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the father of the applicant, namely, Dilip Agrawal, was suffering from various ailments, and the Company is also facing a financial crises, so in such peculiar circumstances, he could not pay proper attention for filing the Revision. He further submits that the application is duly supported with an affidavit. 3. Counsel for the other side strongly opposes the prayer and submits that neither a proper explanation has been assigned nor any certificate has been annexed. 4. Considering all these aspects, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. This Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.5B/2018 by the 8th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed. 6. Necessary facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for recovery of money along with interest on the basis of breach of contract in which the aforesaid application has been filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this Revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Part A of Technical Bid contains a Clause being Clause XVIII relating to laws governing the contract and dispute resolution. For the sake of brevity, Clause XVIII is reproduced below:- “XVIII- Laws Governing The Contract & Dispute Resolution :- 3 (a)The contract will be governed by the laws of India for the time being in force. (b)In case of any dispute arising out of and touching upon the contract, the same will be first referred to the Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee constituted and functioning at the Zonal Office of the Corporation, with a view to settle the disputes. If any disputes remain thereafter, the same will be settled in the Court of Law having competent jurisdiction.” He would further submit that in view of availability of such remedy, this Revision may be disposed of to avail the said remedy by filing suitable application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act, 1996’) and the trial Court may be directed to consider such application in accordance with law. He would fairly admits that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and considering the objections raised by the applicant that the suit is time barred and there is no concluded contract between the parties, this Court is of the view that both the issues are mixed question of law and facts and at this juncture, only plaint averments are required to be seen. Moreover, a defence has also been raised that before accepting the tender, a revocation letter was furnished before the Authority. 4 10.In such circumstances, it is observed that the trial Court may decide both the issues after collecting evidence. 11.Further, considering the prayer made by counsel for the applicant, it is directed that if the applicant moves any application for availing the remedy as per Section 8 of the Act 1996, the concerned trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law strictly on its own merit. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. 12.With the aforesaid observations/directions, this Revision is disposed of. 13.Let a copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. 14.Both the counsel would submit that the case is listed on 20.02.2025. So the said application must be filed on or before the aforesaid date and if no such application is filed, then it shall be presumed that the applicant is not inclined to file any such application. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka