[2025:RJ-JP:25814] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 379/2024 1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Archeology And Mu- seum, Government Of Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Department Of Archeology And Museum, Behind Albert House, Ramniwas Bagh, Jaipur. 3. Executive Engineer, Department Of Archeology And Mu- seum, Behind Albert House, Ramniwas Bagh, Jaipur. 4. Assistant Engineer, Department Of Archeology And Mu- seum, Behind Albert House, Ramniwas Bagh, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus M/s Rajputana Construction Private Limited, Through Director Shri Anil Tambi S/o Shri Gangasharan Ji Tambi, Aged 54 Years, Office Address Rajputana House, 13, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Mall, Dy.G.C. For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 12/07/2025 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-de- fendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Additional Chief Ju- dicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metro-I (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.31/2020 (CIS No. 170/2020), titled as “M/s. Ra- jputana Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Secretary and Ors.” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the de- fendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. [2025:RJ-JP:25814] (2 of 3) [CR-379/2024] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for recov- ery of Rs. 2,57,331/- against the defendants mentioning therein that the plaintiff had submitted the final bill on 14.10.2009 but the defendants wrongly withheld Rs. 2,57,331/-. It was also men- tioned in the plaint that plaintiff had verbally asked the defendants for payment of money. In September, 2019, defendants denied to pay the outstanding amount. After that, he had served the legal notice on 11.10.2019. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defen- dants filed an application before the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC mentioning therein that as per the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff submitted the final bill in the year 2009. After that he had given the legal notice on 11.10.2019 with a view to bringing the suit within the period of limitation. Plaintiff had not initiated any proceeding in between 10 years. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that issue of limitation would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 363/2024 connected with 364/2024 and 365/2024 decided on 28.03.2025. No one has put in appearance for the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:25814] (3 of 3) [CR-379/2024] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned coun- sel for the defendants and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had submitted the final bill in the year 2009. Plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that he had verbally asked for the outstanding money but he had not specifically stated when the said money was demanded. It is also an admitted position that plaintiff had given legal notice for recovery of money in September, 2019 which was an after-thought for bringing the suit within the period of limitation. So, in my considered opinion, suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred. Learned trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the revision petition filed by the defen- dants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limi- tation. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/81