C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4839 of 2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4065 of 2025 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4065 of 2025 (F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27599 OF 2025) ========================================================== SHRI SAMBHAV PRAKASHCHAND SANCHETI Versus SUSHMA DYE PRINT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 11/11/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY) Perused the Oice Report dated 10.11.2025 which categorically records that a Vakalatnama was led on behalf of the learned advocate Mr.Nilay H.Patel without the signatures of the learned advocate and hence it was lying with the document section under objection. Only after we have passed the order dated 04.11.2025 asking the oice to ascertain the factum of ling Vakalatnama and submit a report that the learned advocate had approached the Registry to remove the defect by signing the Vakalatnama. The Vakalatnama was then taken on record on 07.11.2025 and the C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 name of Mr. Nilay H.Patel, learned advocate has been shown in the cause list appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The oice report is found to the satisfaction of the Court. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :- There is no serious objection to the delay in ling the present Appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is allowed. The delay in ling the appeal is hereby condoned. The Oice shall allot the regular number to the appeal, forthwith. ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL: 1. The present appellant is the original plainti in Commercial Civil Suit No. 179 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the Suit”), which was instituted under the provisions of Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the learned Commercial Court at Ahmedabad. The Suit was led against the defendants (respondents herein) seeking recovery of a sum of ₹3,46,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, together with costs of the proceedings. The designation of the parties as in the original suit has been retained in narrating the facts of the present appeal for the sake of clarity. Page 2 of 11 C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 2. The brief foundational facts giving rise to the present appeal, in essence, are as follows:- 2.1 The plainti, engaged in the wholesale business of starch and gum under the trade name “Navkar Starch,” carries on business from the address stated in the cause title. The defendant No. 2 is the proprietor of defendant No. 1 rm, which is engaged in the business of textiles. It emerges from the record that, in the ordinary course of business, the defendants approached the plainti for the supply of starch powder (“goods”) required for their textile manufacturing activities. Pursuant to their mutual understanding, the defendants used to place orders for the said goods with the plainti as per their requirements. 2.2 As per the terms of the business arrangement between the parties, it was agreed that the defendants would make payment to the plainti within seven days from the date of receipt of the goods. It was further stipulated that in case of default in making such payment within a period of thirty days, the plainti would be entitled to recover interest over the bill amount at his discretion. Page 3 of 11 C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 2.3 It is an admitted position that defendant No. 2 purchased goods worth ₹3,66,200.20 from the plainti. Against the said liability, the defendants made a part payment of ₹19,600/- in August 2021, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹3,46,600/-. Upon demand, the defendants assured the plainti that the remaining amount would be cleared within thirty days. However, despite repeated demands and reminders, the defendants failed to discharge their outstanding liability, which led the plainti to believe that such non-payment was deliberate and with mala de intention. 2.4 Consequently, the plainti issued a legal notice dated 02.09.2022, demanding payment of the outstanding sum of ₹3,46,600/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and legal expenses. The said notice was duly served upon the defendants on 06.09.2022 but no compliance was recorded in this regard. Thereafter, the plainti instituted Commercial Civil Suit No. 179 of 2023 before the learned Commercial Judge, Ahmedabad, under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recovery of the said amount along with interest. In compliance with Section 12A of C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the plainti initiated pre- institution mediation proceedings (Pre-Mediation Case No. 34 of 2023). However, as the defendants failed to appear, a Non- Starter Report was led on 13.04.2023. 2.5 Subsequently, the defendants led an application dated 01.12.2023 seeking leave to defend, which came to be rejected by the learned Commercial Court vide order dated 26.03.2025. Thereafter, upon hearing the matter, the learned Commercial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2025, holding that the same was barred by limitation. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Commercial Civil Suit No. 179 of 2023, whereby the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the Suit on the ground of limitation, the plainti (present appellant) has led this appeal. 4. Mr. Pandya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Commercial Court had C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 fallen into grave error by misapplying the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Wirt Petition No.3 of 2020 by denying the appellant, the benet as provided in the said order. According to Mr. Pandya, the entire period between 15.03.2020 and 01.03.2022 ought to have been excluded by the learned Commercial Court while calculating the applicable period of limitation. Mr.Pandya further submitted that the instant case would be squarely covered by the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arif Azim Company Ltd. Vs. Aptech Ltd. reported in 2024 INSC 155, which has followed and explained the applicability of the order dated 10.01.2022. 5. Mr. Nilay Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not able to dispute either the dates relevant to the present appeal nor the applicability of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Commercial Court had erred in dismissing the suit on the C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 ground of limitation. It is an admitted position and recorded by the Commercial Court that the suit is based on Invoice No.193 dated 26.07.2019 produced vide Exh.37 which is the last invoice raised by the plainti. In the absence of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, the limitation for ling the suit would have expired on 25.07.2022. However, the suit came to be led on 29.04.2023, i.e. approximately a period of nine months from the normal expiry of the limitation. 7. In the aforesaid order dated 10.01.2022, it has been specically directed as under :- “5.1 The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. 5.2 Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with e(ect from 01.03.2022. 5.3 In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with e(ect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Page 7 of 11 C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 5.4 It is further clari*ed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12Aof the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 8. Relying upon the aforesaid order, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arif Azim Company Ltd. (Supra) has held as under “82. Thus, in ordinary circumstances, the limitation period available to the petitioner for raising a claim would have come to an end after an expiry of three years, that is, on 27.03.2021. However, in March 2020, the entire world was taken under the grip of the deadly Covid-19 pandemic bringing everyday life and commercial activity to a complete halt across the globe. Taking cognisance of this unfortunate turn of events, this Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Motu Civil Writ Petition No. 03/2020 directed the period commencing from 15.03.2020 to be excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation. The said extension of limitation was extended from time to time by this Court in view of the continuing pandemic. As a result, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was *nally determined to be excluded for the computation of limitation. It was provided that the balance period of limitation as available on 15.03.2020 would become available from 01.03.2022. Operative part of the order dated 10.01.2022 is extracted hereinbelow: “5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with e(ect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with e(ect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clari*ed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 83. The operation and e(ect of the aforesaid order was considered and explained by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 112 as follows: “28. As regards the operation and e(ect of the orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, noticeable it is that even though in the initial order dated 23-3- 2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801], this Court provided that the period of limitation in all the proceedings, irrespective of that prescribed under general or special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15-3-2020 but, while concluding the matter on 23-9-2021 [Cognizance for C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18 SCC 250 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947], this Court speci*cally provided for exclusion of the period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021. A look at the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that while extension of prescribed period in relation to an appeal or certain applications has been envisaged under Section 5, the exclusion of time has been provided in the provisions like Sections 12 to 15 thereof. When a particular period is to be excluded in relation to any suit or proceeding, essentially the reason is that such a period is accepted by law to be the one not referable to any indolence on the part of the litigant, but being relatable to either the force of circumstances or other requirements of law (like that of mandatory two months' notice for a suit against the Government [Vide Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963.]). The excluded period, as a necessary consequence, results in enlargement of time, over and above the period prescribed.” (emphasis supplied) 84. The e(ect of the above-referred order of this Court in the facts of the present case is that the balance limitation left on 15.03.2020 would become available w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The balance period of limitation remaining on 15.03.2020 can be calculated by computing the number of days between 15.03.2020 and 27.03.2021, which is the day when the limitation period would have come to an end under ordinary circumstances. The balance period thus comes to 1 year 13 days. This period of 1 year 13 days becomes available to the petitioner from 01.03.2022, thereby meaning that the limitation period available to the petitioner for invoking arbitration proceedings would have come to an end on 13.03.2023.” 9. Applying the aforesaid example, it will be seen in the present case that the balance of the limitation left on 15.03.2020 was almost 2 years and 4 months, therefore, adding 2 years and 4 months from 01.03.2022 would take the limitation to approximately July, 2024. In the present case, C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 admittedly the suit came to be registered on 29.04.2023 and therefore, the suit has to be said to have been led well within the limitation. 10. In such view of the matter, the learned Commercial Court has committed an error in mis-applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration by holding the suit to be within limitation. No order as to costs. (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BINA SHAH Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: BINA A SHAH(HC00353), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/11/2025 15:10:33