Gujarat High Court
Surbhi Janakbhai Katakiya vs Rajendrakumar Sureshbhai Simpi on 11 July, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 28/04/2025
Pronounced On : 11/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4079 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SURBHI JANAKBHAI KATAKIYA
Versus
RAJENDRAKUMAR SURESHBHAI SIMPI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CB UPADHYAY for MR SURAJ A SHUKLA(7185) for the Appellant
RASHESH A PATEL(8802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PADMRAJ K JADEJA(2095) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA)
1. This Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), is directed against the order dated 9.8.2024 passed by the learned 13 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.20 in Special Civil Suit No.201 of 2023, by which the learned trial court has Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined rejected the plaint under O.VII R.11(a) and (d) of the Code.
2. Brief facts of the case can be stated as under :
2.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that the property i.e. House bearing Plot No.23-B admeasuring 641.26 sq.mtr. situated in Kutch-Bhuj was owned by the plaintiff. Due to some financial issues, the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.5 crores from the defendant and as against that, a registered sale deed of the said property being No.6951 of 2019, dated 28.9.2019, came to be executed in favour of the defendant for a total consideration of Rs.2,63,00,000/- as per the jantri rates.
2.2 One MoU dated 30.8.2019 came to be executed between the plaintiff and the defendant to the effect that if the plaintiff returns the said amount of Rs.5 crores within a period of 5 months, the defendant shall have to execute reverse sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The said MoU was kept open for renewal for 22 months.
2.3 It is the case of the plaintiff that Rs.2,63,00,000/- was paid by the defendant and remaining Rs.2,37,00,000/- was to be paid by 3 different cheques of Axis Bank, Rajpipla Branch being Cheque Nos.(Page.30). However, said cheques were called for by the defendant under the pretext that the amount of Rs.2,37,00,000/- will be paid in a different manner.
Thereafter, further sum of Rs.1,98,00,000/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. However, Rs.39,00,000/- were not paid. Thus, according to the plaintiff, as against Rs.5 crores, Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the defendant has paid Rs.4,61,00,000/-.
2.4 It is the case of the plaintiff that the registered sale deed of the property was executed purely for the security of the loan amount of Rs.5 crores. However, the defendant has raised funds (loan) from the ICICI Bank to the tune of Rs.3,98,00,329/- as against the amount of Rs.1,75,30,038/-. Thus, in total a sum of Rs.5,71,30,369/-.
2.5 It is the case of the plaintiff that out of Rs.4,61,00,000/-, Rs.2,52,00,000/- has already been repaid to the defendant, however, the defendant is not acknowledging the same and asking Rs.8,00,00,000/- for reversing the sale deed.
2.6 The plaintiff, thereby approached the learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara by way of Special Civil Suit No.201 of 2023 for the following reliefs:
"1) Kindly declare that the Memorandum of Understanding Reg. No.10466/2019 executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 30/08/2019 is true and correct.
2) Kindly pass an order that as per the Memorandum of Understanding, accepting the remaining amount after settling the accounts out of Rs.5,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Crores only) given to the plaintiff, the defendant herein shall execute back the Registered Sale Deed of the property under the exclusive Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined ownership and possession of the plaintiff described in Para-2 in favour of the plaintiff.
3) As the defendant has availed Home Loan of Rs.3,98,00,329/- (Rupees Three Crore Ninety-eight Lacs Three Hundred Twenty-nine only) and Top-up Loan of Rs.1,75,30,038/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy-five Lacs Thirty Thousand Thirty-eight only), making total of Rs.5,71,30,369/- (Rupees Five Crores Seventy-one Lacs Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-nine only) from ICICI Bank on 17/01/2022 on the property under the exclusive ownership and possession of the plaintiff described in Para-2, kindly pass an order directing the defendant that the defendant shall repay the entire loan and make the suit property unencumbered.
4) As the defendant has availed Home Loan of Rs.3,98,00,329/- (Rupees Three Crore Ninety-eight Lacs Three Hundred Twenty-nine only) and Top-up Loan of Rs.1,75,30,038/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy-five Lacs Thirty Thousand Thirty-eight only), making total of Rs.5,71,30,369/- (Rupees Five Crores Seventy-one Lacs Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-nine only) from ICICI Bank on 17/01/2022 on the property under the exclusive ownership and possession of the plaintiff described in Para-2, kindly declare that the defendant is responsible to repay the installments of the loan in Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the bank till the payment of entire loan amount.
5) Kindly pass an order that the defendant herein is not entitled or has no right to deprive the plaintiff from his legal rights and entitlement vested in the suit property.
6) Kindly pass an order of permanent injunction against the defendant herein stating that the defendant or his accomplices, agents etc. shall not create any hurdle or obstruction in the actual possession of the plaintiff in the suit property described in the Para-2 of the Suit or he shall not transfer the suit property to anyone by way of sale, mortgage, gift or in any other manner or he shall not create any kind of encumbrance thereon.
7) Kindly grant the cost of the suit from the defendant.
8) Kindly grant any other and further relief as per the principles of justice, equity and natural justice."
2.7 Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement on 4.3.2024 at Exh.19 and also filed an application Exh.20 under O.VII R.11(a) and (d) of the Code on the ground that the suit is beyond the period of limitation.
2.8 The trial court, after having considered the aforesaid application, vide its order dated 9.8.2024, allowed the said Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined application and thereby, rejected the plaint of the plaintiff.
2.9 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the appellant - original plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this Appeal under Section 96 of the Code.
3. Heard Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate with Mr.Suraj Shukla for the appellant and Mr.Padmraj Jadeja for the respondent.
4. Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, has made the following submissions :
(1) Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate submitted that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the plaint by exercising the power under O.VII R.11(a) and (d) of the Code.
Mr.Upadhyay further submitted that the trial court has not properly appreciated the provisions of law and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
(2) Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate submitted that the trial court has not properly appreciated the scope and ambit of the provision of O.VII R.11 of the Code. According to Mr.Upadhyay the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the same can only be decided after full- fledged trial.
(3) Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate has placed heavy Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2020) 19 SCC 10; (2021) 5 SCC 452; (2021) 17 SCC 231 and (2022) 3 SCC 117 and ultimately submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the intention and the scope of the decisions of the Apex Court and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. According to Mr.Upadhyay, the period between 15.3.2020 and 28.2.2022 i.e. period of 716 days deserves to be excluded. Thus, the suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff on 2.9.2023 could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
(4) Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate submitted that the sale deed was executed on 29.8.2019 along with MoU dated 30.8.2019 wherein 5 months' period was agreed upon for the purpose of repayment of the loan. Meaning thereby, 5 months' period would come to an end on 30.1.2020 and from such date, the limitation would start. According to Mr.Upadhyay, in general, the limitation i.e. 3 years would come to an end on 29.1.2023. Learned advocate submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision, the block period of 716 days (from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022) requires to be excluded and, therefore, again, limitation would start from 1.3.2022 for next 2 years 10 months and 15 days and as such, the suit that was filed could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
4.1 By making above submissions, Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate urged this Court to allow the present First Appeal.
Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
5. Per contra, Mr.Padmraj Jadeja learned advocate for the respondent, while supporting the impugned order, made the following submissions :
(1) Mr.Padmraj Jadeja learned advocate submitted that the order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and the same deserves no interference by this Court.
(2) Mr.Padmraj Jadeja learned advocate submitted that the Apex Court has passed the general direction in times of Covid-
19 pandemic with an intention to benefit the vigilant litigants who were actually prevented due to the pandemic and the lock down. Mr.Jadeja submitted that in the instant case, the limitation of 3 years ended on 29.1.2023 much after the pandemic was over and much after the additional 90 days were granted by the Apex Court and admittedly, the suit was filed on 2.9.2023. Under the circumstances, the exclusion of period of limitation i.e. block of 716 days as sought for by the plaintiff, is not available.
5.1 By making the above submissions, Mr.Jadeja learned advocate urged this Court to dismiss the present First Appeal.
6. We have heard Mr.C.B. Upadhyay learned advocate with Mr.Suraj Shukla for the appellant and Mr.Padmraj Jadeja for the respondent and also gone through the material available on record. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the respective Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined parties.
7. A short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the period of 716 days (from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022) deserves exclusion, in cases, where the period of limitation commences before 15.3.2020 and period of limitation is getting over after 90 days from 28.2.2022?
8. So as to decide the aforesaid question, it would be apt to understand the idea behind passing the general directions with regard to limitation during Covid-19 in Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2020) 19 SCC 10, the Apex Court has passed the following directions :
"To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings."
9. The suo-motu cognizance on account of Covid-19 pandemic was to mitigate the difficulties that were faced by the litigants across the country, the Apex Court has extended the period of limitation w.e.f. 15.3.2020 till further orders. Evidently, it was to mitigate the difficulties of the litigants in filing their petition / application / suit / appeals and all other proceedings where a period of limitation is prescribed either Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined by general law of limitation or under special law.
10. The Apex Court in the same Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2020) 19 SCC 9, vide order dated 6.5.2020, passed the following directions :
"2. In view of this Court's earlier order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 and taking into consideration the effect of the Corona Virus (COVID 19) and resultant difficulties being faced by the lawyers and litigants and with a view to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunal across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
3. In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lock down is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lock down."
11. By way of these directions, the Apex Court, in cases pertaining to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the period of limitation was extended w.e.f. 15.3.2020 till further orders. More so, it was further clarified that, in cases, the limitation has expired after 15.3.2020, then the period Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined from 15.3.2020 till the date on which the lock down was lifted, shall be extended for a period of 15 days after lifting of lock down. Meaning thereby, Apex Court has, at the relevant point of time, given 15 days' time after lifting of the lock down to the litigant, whose limitation got over between 15.3.2020 till the date of lifting of lock down.
12. Again, the Apex Court has, in case of Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2021) 5 SCC 452, vide order dated 8.3.2021, after considering the improvement in situation, thought it fit to end the extension of limitation and issued the following directions :
"2.1 In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
2.2 In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
2.3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 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 Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 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."
13. The Apex Court has clarified that in computing the period of limitation, the period from 15.3.2020 till 14.3.2021 shall stand excluded. It has been further clarified that the balance period of limitation remaining from 15.3.2020, if any, shall be available w.e.f. 15.3.2021. The Apex Court further clarified that in cases where limitation expired during the period of 15.3.2020 till 14.3.2021, the period of 90 days from 15.3.2021 shall be excluded regardless the actual balance period of limitation remaining. However, it is further clarified that in the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining w.e.f. 15.3.2021 is more than 90 days, then longer period shall be applicable.
14. The Apex Court has, in case of Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2021) 17 SCC 231, vide order dated 27.4.2021, keeping in mind the certain Covid-19 cases, passed the following order :
"6. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus, thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship of litigant-public in all the states. We, therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders.
7. It is further clarified that the period from 14th March, 2021 till further orders 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."
15. On 10.1.2022, the Apex Court has, in case of Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117, considering the situation prevailing in the country, passed the following directions :
"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 quasi judicial proceedings.
5.2 Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect 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 Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
5.4 It is further clarified 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."
16. In case of Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. v. Upper Assam Pollywood Products, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 317, the Apex Court had an occasion to decide the issue with regard to limitation in the context of decision of the case reported in (2020) 19 SCC 10. The Apex Court, while deciding the aforesaid question, held as under:
"15. By virtue of the proviso to Section 421(3), the Appellate Tribunal was empowered to condone the delay upto a period of period of 45 days. This period of 45 days started running from 02.02.2020 and it expired even according to the appellants on 18.03.2020. The appellants did not file the appeal on or before 18.03.2020, but filed it on 20.07.2020. It is relevant to note that the lock down was imposed only on 24.03.2020 and there was no impediment for the appellants to file the appeal on or before 18.03.2020. To overcome this difficulty, the appellants rely upon the order of this Court Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined dated 23.03.2020. This takes us to the second contention of the appellants.
Contention 2
16. To get over their failure to file an appeal on or before 18.03.2020, the appellants rely upon the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. It reads as follows:
'1.This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19) Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State).
2. To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.
3. We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
4. This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.
5. Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks.'
17. But we do not think that the appellants can take refuge under the above order. What was extended by the above order of this Court was only "the period of limitation" and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lock down, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. It is needless to point out that the law of limitation finds its root in two latin maxims, one of which is Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt which means that the law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them."
17. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has categorically observed that the law will assist those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them. The Apex Court declined to give benefit of decision rendered in (2020) 19 SCC 10. In the said case, the limitation to file appeal got over on 18.3.2020 and the appeal was filed on 20.7.2020. The Apex Court, made it clear that the general directions with regard to limitation are meant to be for the vigilant litigant who are prevented due to pandemic and lock down from initiating proceedings within the limitation Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined prescribed and not for those who are not vigilant.
18. At this stage, it would also be important to take note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors., reported in (2024) 7 SCC 443. In the said decision, the Apex Court had discussed the aspect of condonation of delay vis-a-vis situation of Covid-19 pandemic. The relevant observations are made in Para.55 to 60 read, thus;
"D.4. COVID-19 Pandemic
55. The fourth ground taken by the appellants is that the delay ought to be condoned on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. At this juncture, it would be apposite to discuss the series of orders passed by this Court regarding the operation of limitation vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic.
56. Vide order dt. 23.03.2020 In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, this Court passed an omnibus order extending the period of limitation for proceedings before all courts/tribunals in the country from 15.03.2020 till further orders. Subsequently, vide an order dt. 08.03.2021, this Court noted the lifting of the nation-wide pandemic lock down and a return to normalcy. Accordingly, the Court brought an end to the extension and held that:
"2. .... 2.1 In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 2.2 In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
2.3 The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 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 proceeding [...]".
[emphasis supplied]
57. However, when COVID-19 cases across the country rose again, a miscellaneous application was filed and vide an order dt. 27.04.2021,43 this Court restored the order dated 23.03.2020 and held that the period of limitation is to be extended till further orders. This came to an end on 23.09.2021 when directions to exclude the period between 15.03.2020 and 02.10.2021 from limitation were issued.
58. On account of the third wave of Pandemic, the aforementioned order dated 23.09.2021 was finally modified on 10.01.2022, with a total period of approximately 716 days between 15.03.2020- Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 28.02.2022 being excluded from the operation of limitation.
59. The respondents submit that the orders of this Court passed by this Court from time to time as referred to above, would not come to the aid of the appellants since these orders saved only those actions and proceedings which were within the period of limitation as on 15.03.2020. They contended that the aforementioned orders ought not to be construed in a manner to resuscitate actions and proceedings that were time-barred before the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. If the limitation period had already expired before the pandemic, such cases could not take shelter behind the general relief granted by this Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra). The respondents buttressed their arguments by relying upon Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd.
60. Sagufa Ahmed (supra) construed that the orders passed In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra) were intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lock down, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. We respectfully agree with the view taken in Sagufa Ahmed (supra). Consequently, the benefit of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra) can be availed by the appellants only in a case where the period of limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022."
19. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has, while agreeing with the view taken in the decision in the case of Sagufa Ahmed (supra), also clarified that the benefit of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Re:, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 can be availed by the appellants only in a Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined case where the period of limitation expired between 15.3.2020 and 28.2.2022.
20. Keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of law, now, let us consider the bone of contention of learned advocate for the appellant that the period of 716 days has to be excluded in view of series of decisions of the Apex Court rendered during Covid-19 pandemic. So as to appreciate the said contention, it would be relevant to take into notice the undisputed facts; viz.;
(1) On 29.8.2019, the sale deed was executed for a property in lieu of / as a security towards the loan raised by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.5 crores.
(2) On 30.8.2019, a MoU was entered into between the parties, whereby 5 months' time was granted for repayment of loan. It was further agreed that upon repayment of loan, reverse sale deed would be executed.
(3) The aforesaid period of 5 months got over on 30.1.2020. Thus, the limitation to file the suit for cancellation of sale deed would commence on and from 30.1.2020.
(4) That 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 is the period which the Apex Court has excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation.
Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined (5) That on 29.1.2023, the limitation i.e. 3 years for filing the suit, would come to an end.
(6) The suit was filed on 2.9.2023.
21. In view of above factual aspect, the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the period of 716 days deserves exclusion, in our view, deserves no consideration. We say so because the heavy reliance was placed by learned advocate for the appellant on the decision reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117, more particularly Para.5.1, which is reproduced herein-below for ready reference :
"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."
22. By relying on such direction, it is the case of the appellant that the entire period between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 deserves exclusion and the appellant will get 2 years, 10 months and 15 days of limitation after deducting 1 and 1/2 months prior to 15.3.2020. Thus, the suit filed on 29.3.2020 cannot be said to be beyond the limitation. We are afraid to accept such analogy canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant. Because, from the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate, it has been clarified by the Apex Court in case of Delhi Development Authority (Supra) Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined that the decision reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 will only be applicable in case where the period of limitation expired between 15.3.2020 and 28.2.2022. In the instant case, admittedly, the limitation got over on 29.1.2023 i.e. much after the period of pandemic. The Apex Court has, in the decision reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117, in no uncertain terms, directed as under :
"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 effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply."
23. The Apex Court has made it clear that in all cases where the limitation expired between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all the persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1.3.2022. Further, it is clarified that if the remaining period is greater than 90 days, then longer period shall apply. Therefore, in our view, in the instant case, after pandemic is over, the plaintiff got much longer period remaining for the limitation than 90 days. Therefore, the benefit arising from the directions of the Apex Court for the limitation regarding the pandemic cases, would not be applicable. The appellant - plaintiff could have filed the suit by 29.1.2023; however, the suit was filed only on 2.9.2023, which, in our view, can be said to be barred by law of Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4079/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined limitation and the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting the plaint while exercising power under O.VII R.11 of the Code.
We answer the question accordingly.
24. In view of the above discussion, the present Appeal being bereft of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) V.J. SATWARA Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by V.J. SATWARA(HC00170) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:20:44 IST 2025