1 2026:CGHC:505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 258 of 2025 1 - Vishnu Kumar Modi S/o Late Shri Matadin Modi Aged About 54 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Vishnu Modi Before Trail Court ) Proprietor M/s Anand Auto Agency Near Nahar Bridge Main Road Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Plot No. 786, Above Bandhan Bank Niharika, Korba Tehsil And District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant:- Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 05.01.2026 1. The suit for recovery has been filed by the National Insurance Company against the defendant, in which it has been categorically VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation and, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The learned trial Court allowed the said application and condoned the delay in filing the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is palpably illegal and liable to be set aside, as the limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit cannot be condoned by way of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Gupta v. Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yadav, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 314. It is, therefore, contended that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in condoning the delay and, on this ground alone, the civil suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if the suit is alleged to be barred by limitation, the learned trial Court is required to frame a specific issue in that regard and decide the same in accordance with law. It is contended that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be adjudicated only after framing of issues and consideration of the evidence, and therefore the trial Court is competent to decide the same at the appropriate stage. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that from the averments made in the plaint itself, the suit appears to be barred by limitation, for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. It is well settled and not in dispute that the limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a civil suit cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the question of limitation is required to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court after framing an appropriate issue in this regard. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the learned trial Court is directed to frame a specific issue on limitation and decide the same in accordance with law. 6. Thus, the revision petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha