Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: DJ75/24
Ajay Pipe Company
Vs.
Apace Builders And Contractors Pvt Ltd
02.08.2024
Present:- Ms. Shweta Garg, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
The application for review of the order /judgment
dated 23.12.2023 has been filed by Ld. Ms. Shweta Garg.
Arguments on the application heard.
Vide judgment dated 23.12.2023, a preliminary issue
as to whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation, was
decided against the plaintiff observing that the cause of action for
filing the suit had arose in the year 2017, whereas the suit was
filed by the plaintiff in January 2023.
While passing the judgment dated 23.12.2023, the
court held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act
cannot be given to the plaintiff and that the said section is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In her application, Ld. Ms. Shweta Garg has relied
upon judgments titled M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, (12)
(2015) 7 SCC 58, Sheshnath Singh Vs. Baidyabati Sheorafully
Cooperative Bank decided on 22.03.2021 by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, Rahim Shah Vs. Govind, Morgan Securities and Credits
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. BPL Limited (2023) 01 Delhi CK0040 and
Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575.
In her submissions, Ld. Ms. Shweta Garg has also
relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Purni Devi Vs. Babu Ram decided on 02.04.2024.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
Ld. Ms. Shweta Garg has submitted that the ratio of
all these judgments is that the courts should be liberal while
construing and applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act and that
a formal application u/s 14 of the Act is not necessary and that the
plaintiff has already mentioned about filing of the case u/s 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as proceedings before the
National Company Law Tribunal, in her plaint, therefore, the
Court should have given benefit of Section 14 and the period
spent in proceedings before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and
before the Ld. NCLT should have been excluded from counting
the period of limitation.
The plea of application of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act 1963 was taken during arguments by Ld. Ms.
Shweta Garg before passing of the judgment dated 23.12.2023.
The Court has rejected the argument observing that there were no
necessary pleadings or facts for application of the said section.
Detailed order was passed. There is no error apparent on the face
of the judgment dated 23.12.2023. Review application is not
maintainable. Same is accordingly dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ajay Pandey)
District Judge (Commercial Court-10)
Central, Tis Hazari,02.08.2024
-- 2 of 2 --