V. S. Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd vs South Eastern Coal Fields

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J

By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:-

“1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record in Commercial Suit No.19-B/2024 passed by Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for its kind perusal.

That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Commercial Suit No.19-B/2024 being illegal and erroneous and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC be granted/allowed.

That, cost of the petition be allowed.

Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, according to facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

Brief facts of the case, is that, the present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Commercial Suit No. 19-B/2024 by the Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby the court below has dismissed the applicant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. In the said application, the applicant had specifically contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and that the plaint does not disclose any actionable cause of action for institution of the suit; however, the Commercial Court rejected the application on the grounds that mediation proceedings had been initiated and that the suit was filed only after exhausting such remedies, further holding that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided after framing of issues. The applicant submits that the findings of the Commercial Court are illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law, necessitating the filing of the present petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law, as the Commercial Court failed to appreciate that the civil suit filed by SECL on 16.08.2024 was ex facie barred by limitation and that neither the documents nor the averments in the plaint disclose any acknowledgment of debt attributable to the applicant so as to confer a fresh cause of action upon the plaintiff; that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed in a cursory and mechanical manner without due consideration of the applicant’s specific objections regarding absence of any actionable cause of action in the plaint; that the mediation proceedings relied upon by the plaintiff, as well as the mediation report filed with the plaint, do not demonstrate that the mediation pertained to the same subject matter so as to extend limitation or justify the filing of a time-barred suit; that had the Trial Court allowed the said application, the entire suit would have stood disposed of, thereby ensuring a proper application of the settled legal principles governing rejection of plaint; and that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, particularly when the impugned order is per se illegal, arbitrary, contrary to settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with due care.

The legal position governing the consideration of applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is well settled. Such applications are to be adjudicated solely on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint. The defence raised by the defendants cannot be looked into for the purpose of deciding such an application.

The question of limitation, in the present case is a mixed question of law and fact and can certainly not be dealt with in the form of present application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The objection in this regard by defendant qua rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is not tenable at this stage. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed by the applicants.

Considering the matter in its entirely, this Court find no merit in this civil revision and the same deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed.