1 2025:CGHC:57897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 307 of 2025 1 - M/s Nirpender Logistics Pvt. Lted. Its Director An Ex-Serviceman Coal Transport Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act.1956 Having Registered Office At 305, Som Vihar New Delhi, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through- General Manager South, Eastern Coal Filelds Ltd, Dipka Area Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (27.11.2025) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition/appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Commercial Court (District Judge Level) Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C. G.), in Commercial Suit No.18B/2024, whereby the learned Trial Court declined to entertain and accept the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the same holding that the application lacked merit and did not disclose sufficient grounds for rejection of the plaint. 2. Facts of the case :- The plaintiff, SECL, instituted a civil suit on 16.08.2024 seeking recovery of excess payments allegedly made to the ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 defendant ESM company, asserting that the defendant had been engaged for coal loading and transportation at the Jamuna and Kotma Area under a contract initiated by a letter of intent dated 25.10.2006, operative from 14.11.2006 to 13.11.2011 and subsequently extended until 31.03.2016; that escalation and de-escalation of normative rates applicable to ESM agencies were fixed on 01.04.2001 and revised rates were communicated on 22.04.2016; that pursuant to the revised rates, the General Manager, Dipka Expansion Project, by letter dated 09.03.2017 quantified the payable amounts for loading and transportation at Rs. 88,40,920/- and Rs. 41,32,272/- respectively; that internal communications of the plaintiff reflected an outstanding sum of Rs. 1,29,73,191/- against the defendant on account of diesel de- escalation; that upon approaching the Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, the plaintiff caused notices to be issued and the defendant remitted Rs. 20,00,000/- on 16.08.2021, which the defendant alleges was procured by deceit; that despite repeated reminders dated 23.02.2022, 02.12.2022, 30.05.2023 and 25.01.2024, the balance remained unpaid; that mediation proceedings were initiated but failed owing to the defendant’s non-appearance, compelling the plaintiff to file the present suit for Rs. 1,09,73,191/-; that the defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit was barred by limitation as the final bill was settled on 13.04.2016, that the plaint disclosed no actionable cause of action, and that retrospective recalculation of rates was impermissible; that the plaintiff in reply contended that limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact and 3 that the suit followed exhaustion of mediation; and that by order dated 17.09.2025, the Commercial Court rejected the defendant’s application, holding that the defendant’s payment on 16.08.2021 and the time consumed in pre-institution mediation preserved limitation, and further observing that the issue could not be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 is untenable in law and on facts, as the learned Commercial Court failed to apply the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali , (2020) 7 SCC 366, and Raghvendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh , (2020) 16 SCC 601 , which mandate that where the pleadings themselves reveal a clear bar of limitation, the suit must be rejected at the threshold without being driven to trial; that the suit filed on 16.08.2024 was ex facie hopelessly time-barred, with neither the plaint nor any document disclosing any acknowledgment of liability capable of extending limitation; that despite specific objections, the learned Court cursorily dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without examining the absence of an actionable cause of action; that the mediation proceedings relied upon by the plaintiff do not reflect that they pertained to the same subject matter and therefore could not have the effect of saving limitation; that the Court below further disregarded the law reiterated in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsingh Maharaj Bhonsle , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 384, that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is intended to weed out, at inception, 4 suits which are barred by law and amount to an abuse of process; that had the application of the revisioner been allowed, the proceedings would have rightfully concluded at the preliminary stage in consonance with the aforesaid principles; and that permitting the impugned order to stand would result in grave prejudice, irreparable loss, and a serious miscarriage of justice to the revisioner, rendering the order per se illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 5. The primary question for consideration before this Court is whether, on the basis of the pleadings in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the suit can be rejected as being barred by limitation. 6. It is a settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. Neither the defence raised in the written statement nor the grounds urged in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be looked into at that stage. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanju Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives & Ors. 1 , has held in paragraphs 29.11, 29.12 and 29.13 are pertinent to reproduced herein below :- 29.11. The plea taken in the plain that they learnt of the alleged fraud in 2014, on receipt of the index of the sale 1 (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366 5 deed, is wholly misconceived, since the receipt of the index would not constitute the cause of action for filing the suit. 29.12. On a reading of the plaint, it is clear that the cause of action arose on the non-payment of the bulk of the sale consideration, which event occurred in the year 2009. The plea taken by the plaintiffs is to create an illusory cause of action, so as to overcome the period of limitation. The plea raised is rejected as being meritless and devoid of any truth. 29.13. The conduct of the plaintiffs is not takin recourse to legal action from over a period of 5 and ½ years from the execution of the sale deed in 2009, for payment of the balance sale consideration, also reflects that the institution of the present suit is an afterthought. The plaintiffs apparently filed the suit after the property was further sold by Respondent 1 to Respondents 2 and 3, to cast a doubt on the title of Respondent 1 to the suit property.” 8. Furthermore, in the matter of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives 2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 9 which is as under :- “9. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial court as well as the High Court that the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the 2 (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601 6 evidence, is concerned, clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.” 9. Further, the issue of limitation often involves a mixed question of law and fact. In the present case, whether the suit is within limitation or not cannot be decided in limine without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The Trial Court, in its impugned order, has rightly observed that such questions must be decided at the appropriate stage after framing of issues and considering evidence on record. 10. Accordingly, the present civil revision stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena