Telangana High Court
Smt. Reehana Begum vs Mohd. Zakheer Hussain on 28 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4155 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1
seeking to set aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the
Principal District Judge, at Kamareddy, in I.A.No.714 of 2023
in O.S.No.6 of 2023.
2) Vide impugned order, the application filed by the
revision petitioner-defendant No.1 by invoking Order VII Rule
11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure
to reject the plaint in O.S. No.6 of 2023 filed by the
respondents-plaintiffs for want of limitation, was dismissed by
the learned trial Judge.
3) Heard Sri Vijay B.Paropakari, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, and Sri Vonjari Raja Shekar Reddy and
Ventak Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
4) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has
contended that in the instant case there is no continuous
cause of action and as such the suit filed by the respondents
against the revision petitioner is barred by limitation.
PK, J
2 CRP_4155_2024
Further, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the impugned
application erroneously and the interpretation of the order
dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous
Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C)
No.03 of 2020 by the learned trial Judge is incorrect. Learned
counsel has contended that vide order dated 10.01.2022, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted 90 days to be added
from 01.03.2022 in respect of those cases where limitation
was expired during the period 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022.
But, in the present case, the Agreement of Sale is dated
16.07.2019 and the suit is filed on 10.05.2023. Hence, the
reliance placed by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the
impugned application is misplaced. As regards limitation,
reliance has been placed on Arvindanam v. T.V. Satyapal
Singh 1. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-
Plaintiffs has contended that in view of the order dated
10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous
1 AIR 1977 SC 2421
PK, J
3 CRP_4155_2024
Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C)
No.03 of 2020, the entire period from 15.03.2020 to
28.02.2022 has to be excluded while calculating the limitation
period. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned
trial Judge is well considered and needs no interference of
this Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
7) As can be seen from the record, the revision petitioner-
defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale dated
16.07.2019 in favour of respondents herein agreeing to sell a
portion of open plot (Western side) covered by Survey
Nos.68/1 and 68/2, admeasuring 223.51 Sq. Yards, situated
at Ward No.1, Block No.5, Siricilla Road, Kamareddy Town
and Mandal, Kamareddy District, after taking certain portion
of consideration amount and thereafter failed to execute
registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. As such, the
respondents-plaintiffs have filed a suit for Specific
Performance of agreement of sale dated 16.07.2019 vide O.S.
No.6 of 2023 before the trial Court on 10.05.2023. Hence,
seeking to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation, the
revision petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed the impugned
PK, J
4 CRP_4155_2024
application and the same was dismissed by the learned trial
Judge vide impugned order dated 12.12.2024 duly placing
reliance on the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in
Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-motu Writ
Petition (C) No.03 of 2020.
8) The contention of the revision petitioner is that only in
cases where the limitation period expires between 15.03.2020
and 28.02.2022, the relaxation period of 90 days has to be
permitted and therefore the said order is not applicable to the
case on hand.
9) It is no doubt true that the perusal of order dated
10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, more
particularly para 5 (III), reveals that a period of 90 days has to
be added w.e.f.01.03.2022 in respect of those cases wherein
the limitation period expires between 15.03.2020 and
28.02.2022, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner. But, in the present case, the case of
respondents-plaintiffs falls under the clarification stated at
para 5 (IV) of the order dated 10.01.2022, which reads as
under:
PK, J
5 CRP_4155_2024
"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."
10) Further, in its later judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Arif Azim Company Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd. 2 has well
clarified the above said orders. Relevant portion of the same
is extracted hereunder for better adjudication/understanding
of the matter:
" The effect of the above referred order of this Court in the
facts of the present case is that the balance limitation left on
15.03.2020 would become available w.e.f.01.03.2022. The
balance period of limitation remaining on 15.03.2020 can be
calculated by computing the number of days between
15.03.2020 and 27.03.2021, which is the day when the
limitation period would have come to an end under ordinary
circumstances. The balance period thus comes to 1 year 13
days. This period of 1 year 13 days becomes available to the
petitioner for invoking arbitration proceedings would have
come to an end on 13.03.2023."
2 (2024) 5 SCC 313
PK, J
6 CRP_4155_2024
11) In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the
learned trial Judge has rightly extended the benefit of the
order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous
Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-motu Writ Petition (C)
No.03 of 2020 to the respondents-Plaintiffs and this Court
does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order.
12) Coming to the judgment relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in Arvindanam's case (referred supra),
the same is inapplicable to the facts of the present case
wherein the peculiar circumstances of Covid19 pandemic
prevail.
13) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 28.03.2025.
sur
