Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravikant Bishnoi vs Muthoot Finance Limited ... on 3 October, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:43567]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 6/2025

Ravikant Bishnoi S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident
Of House No 56 Shankar Colony 1St, Ssb Road Sriganganagar.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Muthoot Finance Limited, Registered Office 2nd Floor
         Muthoot Chambers Opposite Saritha Treatre Complex
         Banerji Road Kochi 682018 (Kerala) And Branch Office 1st
         Floor Above Canara Bank New Dhanmandi Sriganganagar
         Through Its Authorized Represenatative Ms Preety Bajaj
         Assistant Branch Manager.
2.       Harish Chand S/o Not Known, Resident Of 128 Street No
         9 Chak 3E Chhotti Sriganganagar
3.       Sukh Lal S/o Jagdish Prasad, Resident Of 44-B Shankar
         Colony 1St, Sriganganagar
4.       Indra Singh S/o Chandra Pal Singh, Resident Of 201/196,
         Gali No. 2, Chak 3E Chhotti, Srigangananagar
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Narendra Thanvi
                                 Mr. Mahendra Thanvi



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

03/10/2025

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against

order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the District Judge, Sri

Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.39/2019 whereby the

application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of

defendant No.1-Ravikant Bishnoi stood rejected.

2. The facts are that a suit for recovery of money was filed by

the plaintiff-Finance Company with the averments that defendant

Nos.1 & 2 namely Ravikant Bishnoi & Harish Chand who were the

(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 06:02:25 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43567] (2 of 6) [CR-6/2025]

employees of the company, misappropriated the gold ornaments

of the customers of the Company which caused a monetary loss to

the Company.

3. It was submitted that as the irregularities and actions of the

defendants culminated into an offence, FIR was lodged on

26.04.2016 at the concerned Police Station. In the criminal

proceedings undertaken in pursuance to the said FIR, the

defendants were convicted vide judgment dated 17.03.2018 for

the offences as alleged.

4. The case of defendant No.1 is that the suit in question filed

on 24.05.2019 was clearly time barred as the cause of action

evidently arose on or before 26.04.2016, i.e. the date on which

the FIR was lodged.

5. It was therefore prayed that the plaint be rejected being

barred by limitation.

6. The case of the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court was

that the present was a continuous cause of action as after the FIR

being lodged, the demand notice was served on the defendants on

07.06.2016 and further when the defendants failed to make

payment of the demanded amount, the plaintiff-Company was

forced upon to waive the partial dues of the concerned customers.

The said waiver in favour of one of the customers was made on

09.02.2017 and second one on 25.02.2017. Further, the cause of

action also arose on 17.03.2018 i.e. the date of judgment by the

competent Court vide which the defendants were convicted.

7. The learned trial Court proceeded on to reject the application

with an observation that limitation is a mixed question of fact and

(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 06:02:25 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43567] (3 of 6) [CR-6/2025]

law and the same could conclusively be determined only after

settling the issues and after recording of the evidence.

8. Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the Hon'ble

Apex Court judgment in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. Vs.

Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj

Bhonsle & Anr.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844 submitted that if

the plaint, on a plain reading, reveals the claim to be barred by

limitation, the same deserves rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 (d),

CPC.

9. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

10. To adjudicate the issue whether the plaint is barred by

limitation, a perusal of the pleadings made in para Nos.21, 26 &

27 of the plaint would be relevant, which read as under:

"21. That vide a similar legal notice of demand dated 04.06.2016, Defendant No.2 and 4 were called upon to make good the loss suffered by the Plaintiff Company computed as on 01.06.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that since the settlements with Mr. Ram Kumar and Mr. Ratan Lal were affected in the year 2017 as such, the amounts mentioned hereinabove towards the waiver granted to them were not claimed by the Plaintiff Company vide the said notice of demand dated 04.06.2016 (posted on 07.06.2016). The copy of the said notice dated 04.06.2016 and the copies of the postal receipts are annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure-"J" (colly).

26. It is therefore evident that all the Defendants are jointly and/or severally liable to pay a principal sum of Rs. 16,20,834/-. The Defendants are further liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,79,770/- towards interest computed on Rs.16,20,834/ with effect from 07.06.2016 till the date of filing of the present suit. The Defendants are further liable to pay a sum of Rs.64,966/- towards interest computed on Rs.234964/- with effect from 09.02.2017 till the date of filing of the present suit. The Defendants are

(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 06:02:25 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43567] (4 of 6) [CR-6/2025]

further liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,596/- towards interest computed on Rs.94,370/- with effect from 25.02.2017 till the date of filing of the present suit. Accordingly as on the date of the filing of the present suit, all the Defendants are jointly and/or severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.22,91,166/- to the Plaintiff Company besides pendentelite and future interest.

27. It is pertinent to mention here that since the services of Defendant No.1 and 2 were terminated the following amounts were otherwise payable by the Plaintiff Company to Defendant No.1 and 2, as per their full and final statements:

      A.    Defendant No.1:            Rs.26616/-
      B.    Defendant No.2:            Rs.19135/-

Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.45,751/- was due and payable, to Defendant No.1 and 2 as aforesaid. The said sum of Rs.45,751/- was adjusted by the Plaintiff Company against the loss suffered by it due to fraudulent and illegal conduct of Defendant No.1 and 2 as explained hereinabove. The amount recoverable has thus been reduced from Rs.22,91,166/- to Rs.22,45,415/-. All the Defendants are therefore jointly and/or severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.22,45,415/- to the Plaintiff, besides pendentelite and future interest. HENCE THIS SUIT.

11. A bare perusal of the above pleadings reflect that the first

demand notice as served on the defendants was of 04.06.2016.

However, the settlements with the concerned customers were

made in the year 2017. Hence, the loss caused to the plaintiff-

Company because of the said settlements and waivers in favour of

the customers, could not have been claimed in the year 2016

when the first notice was served.

12. The claim qua the loss due to settlement/waivers also have

been made a part of the claim in the present suit. On the face of

it, the suit instituted on 24.05.2019 qua the cause which arose in

the year 2017 cannot be termed to be prima facie time barred

without the same been proved by cogent evidence.

(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 06:02:25 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43567] (5 of 6) [CR-6/2025]

13. In the specific opinion of this Court, even if for the sake of

assumption it is assumed that the plaint was time barred because

of the alleged cause of action having arisen on 24.04.2016, cause

of action qua the settlement/waiver cannot be assumed to be so.

Meaning thereby, even if it is observed that some of the reliefs as

claimed in the suit are barred by time, all of the reliefs as claimed

cannot be termed to be so.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India & Anr.

vs. Prabha Jain & Ors.; (2025) 4 SCC 38 held as under:

"23. Even if we would have been persuaded to take the view that the third relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In the case on hand, the first and second reliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and are within the civil court's jurisdiction. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

24. If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order 7 Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B."

15. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India

(supra), a plaint cannot be rejected in part. Therein, the Court

held that even if the Court reaches to a conclusion that some of

the reliefs are time barred, no such finding ought to be recorded

by the Court while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11,

CPC. The correct approach would be to leave the said reliefs to be

(Uploaded on 03/10/2025 at 06:02:25 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43567] (6 of 6) [CR-6/2025]

decided by the Court after the settlement of the issues and the

evidence been led on the same.

16. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, this Court is

of the clear opinion that all the reliefs as claimed for in the present