Anupam Gupta vs Hershit Kumar Gupta

Anish Dayal, J.

This petition invites interpretation of directions passed by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic relating to the extension of the period of limitation [In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020].

This Revision Petition has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 30^th April 2026 passed by the District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No. 542/2023, which dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) filed by the petitioner/defendant for rejection of the plaint as being barred by limitation. For this purpose, it will be useful to record the sequence of events.

A suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with interest was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. It was claimed that the families of the plaintiff and the defendant had close family ties for more than 35 years. In October 2018, the defendant's father had approached the father of the plaintiff seeking financial help to set up a new business. The plaintiff and his father agreed to transfer a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the father of the defendant. The amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant’s father. It is alleged that over a period of time, when they asked for the return of the loan, various excuses were given not to comply.

On 11^th May 2021, father of the defendant passed away, and the responsibility of the business was passed on to the defendant. Yet again, despite requests and reminders, the defendant failed to repay the loan. A demand letter was sent on 12^th July 2023 through the post, which was delivered on 13^th July 2023. Since the amount was not paid, the suit was filed in October 2023. In the suit, it was stated that the limitation started from 25^th October 2018 and, taking into account the Supreme Court’s directives on extension of limitation during the COVID-19, the period from 15^th March 2020 till 28^th February 2022 stands excluded.

In application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the defendant primarily raised the issue that the suit is time-barred and should accordingly be dismissed. Defendant argued that even after availing the benefit of exclusion provided under In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, the suit is time-barred. The Trial Court noted that the issue is only of correct interpretation and application of the directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning exclusion and extension of limitation during the pandemic period.

The Court observed that limitation would ordinarily have expired on 25^th October 2021. As on 15^th March 2020, a balance period of 1 year, 7 months and 10 days remained. This balance period was preserved and became available from 01^st March 2022. Thereby, limitation would have expired on 11^th October 2023. The Court held that since suit was filed on 09^th October 2023, it was held to be within limitation. Trial Court rejected the argument of the defendant that plaintiff was entitled to only 90 days from 01^st March 2022.

The Trial Court dismissed the Order VII Rule 11 application and concluded that the grounds raised under the application are not made out.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract, in chronological sequence, the various directions issued by the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the interpretation and effect of these successive directions are directly relevant to the issue of limitation arising in the present case.

Ms. Rashi Bansal, counsel for petitioner, has relied upon the following judgments in support of her submissions:

Counsel for the respondent relied upon Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Vatsal Mittal 2022 SCC OnLine Del 711, wherein a Single Bench of this Court, while dealing with a petition filed by the defendant, considered a case where the Trial Court had taken the written statement off the record on the ground that, according to the defendant’s own case, noted that the summons had been served on 23^rd March 2021 and the written statement had been filed on 26^th August 2021, i.e. after expiry of the maximum period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, as applicable to Commercial Courts. The appellant pleaded the benefit of the IV^th directive. The High Court held that the entire period from 23^rd March 2021 to 26th July 2021 fell within the period contemplated by the Supreme Court in IV^th directive and, therefore, stood excluded.

Certain other decisions, though not cited by counsel, useful for establishing an interpretation are as under:

In the facts of this case, there is no dispute regarding the starting point of the period of limitation, i.e. 24^th October 2018. Accordingly, the limitation would expire on 23^rd October 2021, which falls within the period of 15^th March 2020 to 28^th February 2022. Therefore, IV^th directive would apply.

Ms. Rashi Bansal states that, as per IV^th directive, only a limitation period of 90 days would be available from 01^st March 2022. The suit was filed on 9^th October 2023, which is approximately 19 months from the post-COVID period, starting from 01^st March 2022.

However, in the opinion of this Court, if one takes IV^th directive into consideration in its true spirit and intent, then the full period from 15^th March 2020 till 28^th February 2022, which is approximately 23 months and 13 days, would be available from 28^th February 2022 and, therefore, the suit would be filed within the period of limitation.

This aspect has already been addressed by the Division Bench in Shri Jai Prakash Tayal (supra). However, even if a cue is taken from the observations in Prakash Corporates (supra), the interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court itself supports the same finding.

In Prakash Corporates (supra), the Supreme Court has clarified that where a particular period is liable to be excluded in relation to any suit or proceeding, owing either to circumstances or to the requirements of law, such excluded period results in an enlargement of time ‘over and above’ the limitation period otherwise prescribed.

The assertion of Ms. Bansal that if the limitation period got exhausted during the stated period from 15^th March 2020 till 28^th February 2022 (‘hereinafter COVID period’), then only 90 days would be available from 01^st March 2022, does not take into account certain aspects. First, the primary directive issued by the Supreme Court, which was stated categorically in the II^nd directive and reiterated in the III^rd and IV^th directives, was that, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, the COVID period would stand excluded. As per the II^nd directive, the period ended on 14^th March 2021; as per the III^rd directive, it was extended till 02^nd October 2021; and by the IV^th directive, till 28^th February 2022.

Once a directive for exclusion has been given, the period which fell within the COVID period would automatically become available from 01^st March 2022. This would be in consonance with the view of the Supreme Court in Prakash Corporates (supra), on the essential principle that exclusion of a period results in enlargement of time ‘over and above’ the period prescribed.

The issue under consideration is whether the 2^nd part of the II^nd, III^rd and IV^th directives curtailed the period, so added by exclusion, to only 90 days. It would be contrary to logic and reason to hold that, having provided for exclusion of the COVID period and consequent enlargement of the limitation period, the Supreme Court intended to restrict the benefit of such exclusion to a maximum period of 90 days. Such an interpretation would lead to anomalous and incongruous results.

The consequences of such an interpretation become evident from the following illustrations:

It is quite evident that 90 days’ special period directed by the Supreme Court was intended for cases where limitation would get exhausted within a month or so from commencement of the COVID period and, therefore, to ensure that litigants had a reasonable period to resume filing activity, after the end of the COVID period, a period of 90 days was provided. This would mean that, where limitation would have expired within 90 days from 15^th March 2020, the litigant would still get a full period of 90 days additionally after 01^st March 2022. This would not mean that, where a period of limitation exceeding 90 days got consumed during the COVID period, only a fixed period of 90 days would become available. For this purpose, the Supreme Court gave the clarification in the 2^nd part of third paragraph of the directive, stating that if a larger period was available, the same would apply.

To elucidate this further, the 1^st part of third paragraph of IV^th directive states that “In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022.”

This relates to cases where the actual balance period of limitation remaining from 15th March 2020 was less than 90 days, and limitation would have got exhausted during that period. The Supreme Court gave “all persons a limitation period of 90 days from 01^st March 2022”. The significance of the expression “all persons” used by the Supreme Court clearly relates to all persons falling within the category of cases where less than 90 days of limitation remained after the end of the COVID period.

For the others, the 2^nd part of the directive in third paragraph would apply, which states that “In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply”.

The Supreme Court, very specifically, stated that if the actual balance period remaining was greater than 90 days, the longer period would apply.

The Supreme Court, therefore, provided a bifurcation between two situations where limitation was getting exhausted during the COVID period. For those who had a balance period of more than 90 days, the longer period would apply, whereas for all those who did not fall within that category, a fixed period of 90 days was provided.

Accepting Ms. Bansal’s argument would, in fact, mean that litigants would have had to scramble to file a suit/petition within the 90-day period after the end of the COVID period, i.e. after 28^th February 2022, irrespective of the fact that they may have lost a year or so of limitation during the COVID period. This would, in the opinion of this Court, be an illogical and irrational interpretation of the Supreme Court directives.

As categorically provided in the third paragraph itself of the IV^th directive, where limitation had commenced during the COVID period and the balance period of limitation remaining on 15^th March 2020 was more than 90 days, the entire balance period would be available from 1^st March 2022. The intent behind the directions was to ensure that an aggrieved person was given the benefit of the entire balance period available to institute the proceedings and to give them sufficient time to file a proceeding.

As regards the other contention raised by Ms. Bansal that if the intention of the Supreme Court had been to extend the period of limitation by the balance period remaining as on 15^th March 2020 and to add the same from 1^st March 2022, the Supreme Court would have issued a specific direction to that effect, as it did in the fourth paragraph of the IV^th directive with respect to matters pertaining to Arbitration and Negotiable Instruments. However, the fourth paragraph of the directive also makes it abundantly clear that for Arbitration and Negotiable Instruments, the COVID period, i.e. from 15^th March 2020 to 28^th February 2022, will ‘also’ stand excluded. Use of the phrase ‘also’ further embellishes the Supreme Court’s intent that whole COVID period ought to be excluded from limitation. Ergo, balance fall within the excluded period would necessarily be added post completion of COVID period.

In the present case, the cause of action arose on 25^th October 2018 and, accordingly, the actual period of limitation would end on 25^th October 2021. The period which got exhausted during the COVID period was 19 months and 11 days. Applying the observation made hereinabove, the said period, i.e. 19 months and 11 days, would be available from 01^st March 2022 and would get exhausted on 11^th October 2023. Suit was filed just before, on 09^th October 2023, and would, therefore, be within limitation. Diagrammatic representation of the same is provided below for easy reference:

Accordingly, the Court does not find the impugned order of the Trial Court amiss and the petition stands dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.