The Commercial Court at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, has rejected a commercial recovery suit filed by Living Media India Limited against the State of Andhra Pradesh, acting through the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority, holding that the claim was barred by limitation.
The suit, seeking recovery of ₹1.58 crore along with interest, arose out of alleged non-payment for advertisement services. The State had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the suit was barred by limitation, among other preliminary objections.
Allowing the application, the Court held that the cause of action, as pleaded by the plaintiff itself, first arose on 30 December 2018, when the amount became due. The Court rejected the contention that subsequent correspondence, reminders, or alleged “breaking points” could extend or postpone the commencement of limitation, observing that limitation begins from the date the amount first becomes payable.
A key issue considered by the Court was the effect of e-filing on limitation. Relying on the record of e-filing produced by the plaintiff, the Court noted that while the filing process was initiated earlier, the plaint was finally submitted on the e-filing portal only on 20 March 2024. The Court held that for the purposes of limitation, the relevant date of filing is the date of final submission of the e-filed plaint, and not the date of initiation. An incomplete or defective e-filing, the Court observed, is non est in law and does not stop the running of limitation.
The Court further held that since the material dates were not in dispute and emerged from the plaint and the e-filing record itself, the issue of limitation could be decided at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
In view of these findings, the Commercial Court concluded that the suit had been instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation, even after accounting for the COVID-19 extension granted by the Supreme Court, and accordingly rejected the plaint.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Sh. Ganiul Hakim, Advocate/ld. proxy counsel
For the Respondent: Advocates Noor Shergill, Anuja Pethia, Kshirja Agarwal, Rishabh Nigam, Rishabh Govila, Amisha Aggarwal
