$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010373782026 + RFA 837/2026, CM APPL. 53821/2026, CM APPL. 53822/2026 ANJU RANI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rachit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Vinit Tyagi, Advocates. versus BISHAN CHAND AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 13.08.2026 CM APPL. 53820/2026 (Seeking Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. RFA 837/2026 3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the Impugned order dated 06.03.26 whereby the Suit No. CS DJ No. 1262/2024 of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,44,696/- along with interest @ 10.20% p.a. has been rejected for being time barred, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the Plaintiff, Anju Rani, has known Defendant No. 1, Bishan Chand, who is a friend of her brother, Vimal Kumar Goyal, for about 20 years. Defendant No. 1 requested a loan of Rs. 5 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 15:07:35 lakhs, with a promise to return the same along with interest. Accordingly, the Plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 5 lakhs along with interest @ 8.50% p.a., on 10.05.2019 to Defendant No. 1, upon the assurance of her brother that he would return the money. 5. Defendant No. 1 issued a Receipt dated 13.05.2019, in his own handwriting and signatures, acknowledging having received the loan amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and undertaking to return the same along with interest @ 10.20% p.a., on his own behalf as well as in his capacity as a partner of M/s Thandi Ram Jai Narain, Defendant No. 2. 6. It was explained in the plaint that no specific period for repayment was fixed and that the loan amount was allegedly repayable on demand along with interest. Despite repeated requests, the Defendants failed to pay either the interest or the principal amount. It was stated that the Suit was governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act and was within limitation. A legal notice dated 05.10.2024 was served upon the Defendants, but the same was refused and returned to the Plaintiff. 7. The Plaintiff thus, filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 8,44,696/- along with interest @ 10.20% p.a. 8. An Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the Defendants for rejection of the Suit, as being barred by limitation. It was submitted that that as per the Plaintiff herself, the loan was advanced in May, 2019 and no specific period for repayment was agreed between the parties. Even if the Receipt/Acknowledgement is assumed to be genuine, the same did not stipulate any date of repayment of loan. 9. The case squarely fell within Article 19 of the Schedule 2 Limitation Act, which prescribes the limitation period of 03 years from the date when This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 15:07:35 the loan is advanced. It was contended that even if the Plaintiff’s contention that the loan was repayable on demand is accepted, it would fall under Article 21 of Limitation Act, which governs suits for money lent under an agreement and is payable on demand. Under Article 21 as well, limitation period is 03 years, from the date when the loan is given. 10. The Defendants referred to Syndicate Bank v Channaveerappa Beleri and Others (2006) 11 SCC 506 wherein it was held that in cases of loan payable on demand, the limitation begins to run from the date of loan and not the date of demand. 11. It was therefore, submitted that the loan was admittedly advanced on 13.05.2019 and the period of limitation expired in May, 2022. The Suit has been filed on 17.12.2024 and is therefore, barred by limitation. 12. The learned District Judge on appreciation of the rival contentions, held that the limitation for recovery of the loan given on 13.05.2019 was 03 years, while the Suit had been filed beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the Suit of the Plaintiff was rejected as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 13. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Regular First Appeal has been filed. 14. The grounds of challenge are that in the Receipt dated 13.05.2019 executed in favor of the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 in his own hand writing, did not give any date of repayment of loan. 15. It is asserted that where there is no fixed period or date for repayment of loan. The demand for return of loan was made for the first time on 05.10.2024, when the Legal Notice was served upon the Defendants. Therefore, the period of limitation would commence from 05.10.2024 and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 15:07:35 the Suit has been filed within a period of 03 years from the said date and is within limitation. 16. The Suit is governed by Article 113 Limitation Act, which provides that the Suit has to be filed for within 03 years from the date of arising of cause of action. It was further submitted that Article 55 of Schedule to Limitation Act provide the period of 03 years from the date of breach. This loan was payable on demand, which was made through the Legal Notice dated 05.10.2024. The cause of action arose on the date of sending the Legal Notice and therefore, the Suit was not barred by limitation. 17. A prayer is therefore, made that the impugned Order be set aside. Submissions heard and record perused. 18. The issue arising for consideration is whether the Suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,44,696/-, based on the Receipt dated 13.05.2019, is barred by limitation, warranting rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 19. It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of Rs.5 lakhs to Defendant No.1 on 10.05.2019, in respect of which Defendant No.1 executed a Receipt/Acknowledgement dated 13.05.2019, in his own handwriting, undertaking to return the loan of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest @ 10.20% p.a. It is also not in dispute that the said Receipt does not stipulate any specific date or period for repayment of the loan. 20. Where a loan is advanced without any stipulation as to the date of repayment, and is intended to be repayable on demand, the Suit for its recovery is governed by Article 21 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years from the date the loan is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 15:07:35 made, and not from the date of demand. 21. As rightly relied upon before the learned District Judge, the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank (supra) has authoritatively held that in the case of a loan repayable on demand, limitation begins to run from the date of the loan itself, and the making of a demand does not postpone the accrual of the cause of action. 22. This proposition is further fortified by the decision of this Court in Gautam Seth v. Jaiveer Singh 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10296; Balbir Rajput v. R.P. Exports and Others 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2298, Mr. Dev Ranjan Mittra & Anr. v. Aditya Barna Mittra, CS(OS) 440/2020, decided on 31.05.2023, and in Satya Prakash Kansal, Sole Proprietor of M/s New V.K. Electricals v. Raj Kumar Tiwari, RFA 192/2022, decided on 16.03.2026, wherein, while rejecting a similar plea that limitation should be computed from the date of a subsequent demand, it was held that a suit for recovery of a loan, where no period is fixed for its repayment, is governed by Article 19 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, and is required to be filed within three years from the date when the loan is made. 23. 23. Furthermore, Article 113 of the Limitation Act, being a residuary provision, applies only where no other Article of the Schedule specifically governs the claim in question. Since the claim for recovery of the loan advanced by the Plaintiff is squarely covered by Article 21, being a loan with no fixed date of repayment, recourse to the residuary Article 113, or to Article 55, is impermissible. It is well settled that where a specific provision governs a particular claim, the general or residuary provision must yield to the special provision. 24. Even if the Receipt dated 13.05.2019 is treated as an acknowledgment This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 15:07:35 of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the extended period of limitation would run for three years therefrom, i.e., upto 13.05.2022. The Legal Notice dated 05.10.2024, upon which the Appellant seeks to found a fresh cause of action, was admittedly issued more than two years after the extended period of limitation (even after exclusion of the period 20.03.2020 till 29.02.2022 due too Covid), had already expired. A demand made after expiry of limitation cannot revive a right which already stood extinguished, nor can it furnish a fresh starting point for limitation. 25. The contention that the cause of action arose only upon service of the Legal Notice dated 05.10.2024, and that the Suit is governed by Article 55 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act, is thus, misconceived. The Suit is not one for breach of contract simpliciter, nor one for which no other provision is made in the Schedule. It is a suit for recovery of money lent, squarely covered by Article 21, and the general Articles 55 and 113 have no application to the facts of the present case. 26. The loan was admittedly advanced on 10.05.2019 and acknowledged vide Receipt dated 13.05.2019, and the period of limitation, computed from either date, expired well before the date of institution of the Suit on 17.12.2024. The Plaint, therefore, on its own showing, discloses that the Suit is barred by limitation, and was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 27. In view of the aforesaid, there is no infirmity in the finding of the learned District Judge that the Suit of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,44,696/- was barred by limitation. The impugned Judgment does not warrant any interference. 28. Accordingly, the Regular First Appeal, being devoid of merit, is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 15:07:35 dismissed. 29. The pending Applications, are disposed of, accordingly. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J AUGUST 13, 2026/R This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2026 at 15:07:35