RAJ KUMAR TIWARI HUF vs SATYA PRAKASH KANSAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 + C.R.P. 10/2022 & CM Appls.5675/2022, 44569/2022 RAJ KUMAR TIWARI HUF .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Dutt Dixit and Ms. Gauri Dixit, Advs. versus SATYA PRAKASH KANSAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Agarwal and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order dated 17.12.2021 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ADJ (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent has filed a suit for recovery in the sum of Rs. 4,96,380/- along with interest which suit, admittedly was filed on 05.10.2020. 2.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the loan transaction took place between the parties on 18.11.2016 by way of an RTGS transfer from the Respondent to the Petitioner. He further submits that the limitation to file the suit would have been three years from the date Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI C.R.P. 10/2022 Page 1 of 12 NARAYAN Signing Date:09.05.2025 20:51:51 of the transaction and thus, the suit which was filed in the year 2020 was barred by limitation. 2.2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Mortulo Ramchandra Gad (since dec.) through LR’s & Ors. v. John Pinto (since deceased) through LR’s & Ors. 1 in support of his contentions. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, admits that