M/s. AGN Glass Shoppe & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank

Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

This is an application filed by the present a pplicants under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), challenging the order dated 16.01.2026 passed below Exh.13 by the learned 4^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No.275 of 2023, whereby, the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, came to be rejected.

According to the applicants, the non-applicant/original plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of outstanding dues amounting to Rs.19,66,962.50/- from the applicants/defendants on the basis of the accounts of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 14.07.2016. The suit was filed by the e-filing process. As per the case status of e-filing, the date of the filing the suit is shown as 17.02.2023 and the filing date of suit is shown as 21.02.2023. Thereafter, the suit came to be registered as Special Civil Suit No.275 of 2023 on 02.03.2023.

According to the applicants/defendants, in pursuance of para No.10 of the plaint, the cause of action arose on 04.02.2020 as per the pleadings of the non-applicant/plaintiff. Therefore, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 04.02.2023. However, according to them the suit was admittedly filed on 21.02.2023. The applicants further submitted that even if the suit is considered as having been e-filed on 17.02.2023, it was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation of three years and therefore, the suit filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation. Accordingly, the applicants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of plaint. However, the said application came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.11.2025.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicants/defendants have approached this Court by filing the civil revision application under Section 115 of the CPC.

Mr. Quazi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Trial Court committed a grave error in not considering the correct filing date of the suit as 21.02.2023 or even the e-filing date of the same is 17.02.2023. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be quashed and set-aside.

Mr. Quazi, learned counsel for the applicants further submits that if the pleadings are considered, the non-applicant/plaintiff has got cause of action on 04.02.2020 to institute the suit. As per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 04.02.2023. Since, the suit is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. He therefore, submits that the plaint was liable to be rejected in pursuance of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and that the impugned order rejecting the application is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

Per contra, Mr. Bansod, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is correct and it has rightly considered the provisions of law and as such, no error has been committed by the learned Trial Court while passing the said order. Therefore, he prays that the same is required to be maintained. He further submits that as per the statement annexed at Page No.74 of the present matter, it is disclosed that the suit is uploaded on 28.01.2023 and the final submit date is 17.02.2023. He further places reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Ozone Research Applications (India) Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956, through its Authorized Representative Mr. Vishal Waindeskar Vs. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd., a Public Limited Company Registered under Companies Act, 1956 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1741, wherein it has observed that Rule 2.1 of the e-filing Rules of the High Court of Bombay, 2022 (for short “the Rules”). Rules 2.1 defines what is ‘action’, the said Rule states that the ‘action’ which includes all proceedings instituted in this Court such as suits, criminal complaints, appeals, complaints, civil or criminal writ petition, revision petitions, contempt petitions, execution petitions, arbitration petitions, probate cases and interlocutory applications. He further submits that Rule 14 of the Rules provides for computation of time/limitation, which shall be computed for action through e-filing. Rule 14.1 reads as under:-

Thus, the aforesaid provisions governing the limitation for the online e-filing, which is applicable, same as those applicable to physical filing. Rule 14.1 of the Rules, makes it clear that the date of e-filing shall be taken as that the date when the action is electronically received in the Registry.

This Court in the aforesaid decision, has held that when an action is electronically received by the Registry, the said date shall be considered as the date of e-filing. There may be a possibility that on such action, there could certain office objections which could have to be notified on subsequent dates. However, as in the case of physical filing of any proceedings, the date of filing is the date it has first tendered the proceedings in the Registry. The objections may be notified at any subsequent point of time. The time is being given to cure the objections, but the filing date do not kept postpone till the removal of office objections. Therefore, for all purposes, the date of presenting the matter either through e-filing or physical filing, it shall be the date on which the proceedings for the first time are tendered before the Registry.

While relying upon Rule 14.2 of the Rules, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Membai Metro One Pvt. Ltd., in Interim Application No.22009 of 2024 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.427 of 2024 which was decided on 24.10.2024 has observed that in pursuance of Rule 14.2 of the Rules, the date of filing of a matter shall be the date of e-filing, which would be taken as the date when the action is electrically received in the Registry, within the prescribed time of a working day.

Rule 14.4 of the Rules, further makes it clear that the provisions of limitation governing on-line e-filing will be the same as those applicable to the physical filing. In pursuance to the aforesaid Rules, learned counsel for the respondent had rightly pointed out that the non-applicant/plaintiff had presented the suit by e-filing on 28.01.2023. Therefore, the said date is required to be considered as the date of filing the suit. Hence, the said suit is being filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present civil revision application. Accordingly, the present civil revision application is dismissed. No order as to costs.