Calcutta High Court
Ajay Kumar Agarwala vs West Bengal State Seed Corporation Ltd on 10 June, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
2015:CHC-OS:42
OD - 4
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
In CS-COM/636/2024
[OLD NO CS/166/2013]
IA NO. GA-COM/4/2024
AJAY KUMAR AGARWALA
Vs
WEST BENGAL STATE SEED CORPORATION LTD
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 10th June, 2025
Appearance:
Ms. Labanyasree Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Debasree Mukherjee, Adv.
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Jaydeep Roy, Adv.
...for the Defendant.
The Court: GA-COM 4 of 2024 is an application filed by the Defendant,
praying for rejection of plaint.
This instant application is part heard, hence decided by this Bench.
2
2015:CHC-OS:42
The Plaintiff instituted the suit, praying for recovery of money along with
interest. The Plaintiff supplied dolomites at different Blocks of the district of Nadia
to the Defendant. Supplies were complete within 24/03/2010. The Plaintiff also
raised bills against such supplies. Since bills were not paid, the instant suit was filed
on 04/05/2013. It is contended in the application that in terms of relevant provision
of Limitation Act, 1963, time period filing suit for price of goods sold and delivered,
is a period of 3 years from the date of delivery of goods and not beyond; that the
instant suit, as pleaded, was filed beyond the period of limitation; goods were
delivered on 24/03/2010 and the suit was filed on 04/05/2013 after a period of
three. Hence, it is contended the suit is barred and that the plaint should be rejected
in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (d).
Affidavit-in-Opposition as well as affidavit-in-reply was filed.
In the Affidavit-in-Opposition, it is contended that the instant application
praying for rejection of plaint is filed at much belated stage of the suit when witness
action is in progress, only to impede expedite disposal of the trial. It is also
contended that issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which can be
decided only on evidence.
Both the parties filed their respective notes of arguments.
It is averred in the plaint that Plaintiff submitted bills on 14/03/2010 for
Rs.31,49,380/-. After lapse of long 9 months the Defendants, by its letter dated
14/12/2010
alleged that the dolomites, as supplied by the Plaintiff, was of sub-
standard or inferior quality. In terms of the said letter the Defendant intimated the
Plaintiff that the earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- had been forfeited. In the instant
suit among others Plaintiff has also claimed recovery of the earnest money forfeiture
3
2015:CHC-OS:42
of which was intimated to the Plaintiff only on 14/12/2010. The suit was filed on
04/05/2013.
There is no cavil on the point that while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 neither plaint can be compartmentalized nor the prayers can be
dissected or segmented to pick up this and to throw away that. The plaint is to be
considered as a whole. Here the limitation is more a mixed question of law and facts.
Without aid of evidence the same cannot be decided. Therefore, the present
application for rejection of plaint is not tenable and stands dismissed.
GA-COM 4 of 2024 is disposed of.
Let the suit be placed before Bench having determination.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link