M/S DES RAJ OM PARKASH TH. SANJEEV GUPTA vs M/S 17 MILES HOTEL RESTAURANT TH. ITS PARTNERS AND OTHERS

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU


Reserved on
Pronounced on
Uploaded on
29 .10.2026
06.11.2026
06.11.2026

Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full


RFA No. 21/2026

M/s Des Raj Om Parkash th. Sanjeev Gupta
...Petitioner /Appellant(s)
Through: - Ms. Meenakshi Slathia Kour, Advocate &
Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocate
vs.
M/s 17 Miles Hotel Restaurant and others ...Respondent(s)

Through: - Mr. R. K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pramvir Singh, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT


Sanjay Dhar-J
1. Through the medium of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged
the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned
Commercial Court, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”),
whereby the suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground
that the same is barred by limitation.
2. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit against the
respondents/defendants before the learned trial court, seeking recovery
of an amount of Rs. 3,73,477/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum for the period from 01.03.2020 to 01.02.2023. The suit was

instituted before the trial court on 03.06.2023. The recovery of the
aforesaid amount was sought in respect of the price of goods supplied to
the defendants.

3. It seems that the defendants did not put in their appearance before the
trial court. They were, accordingly, set ex parte. The plaintiff was
directed to produce ex parte evidence in support of its case. After
completion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the case was set down for final
hearing. At that stage, the learned trial court has, after noticing that the
last delivery of goods was made by the plaintiff on 01.03.2020 and the
last payment was made by the defendants on 24.02.2020, observed that
the suit was required to be filed on or before 28.02.2023. The trial court
held that because the suit had been filed on 03.06.2023, as such, the
same is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the learned trial court
dismissed the suit being barred by limitation.
4. The appellant/plaintiff has challenged the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial court on the grounds that the
transactions between the parties were commercial in nature and involved
a running account, which the learned trial court has failed to appreciate.
It has been submitted that, since there was a running and mutual account,
the period of limitation kept on extending on the basis of the last
acknowledged balance. It has further been contended that the learned
trial court did not take into consideration the subsequent
acknowledgments. It has also been contended that the learned trial court
failed to extend the benefit of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for
Extension of Limitation). According to the plaintiff, if the period from
RFA No. 21/2026



Page
2
of
6

01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded while computing the period of
limitation, the suit would be within the prescribed period of limitation.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone
through the grounds of appeal and the impugned judgment passed by the
learned trial court.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has
raised only one ground to assail the impugned judgment and decree.
According to learned counsel, the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation in view
of the directions passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation). It
has been submitted that, if the aforesaid period is excluded, the suit filed
by the plaintiff would be within the prescribed period of limitation.

7. In the above context, if we have a look at the orders passed by the
Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re:
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation), it is revealed that, on
23.03.2020, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the
situation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the said date, the
Supreme Court, while exercising its powers under Article 142, read with
Article 141 of the Constitution, ordered that the period of limitation in
all proceedings, irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed under
general or special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended
with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. The said order was
extended from time to time and, finally, on 10.01.2022, the following
directions were issued:
RFA No. 21/2026



Page
3
of
6

“ I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in
continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021,
27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period
from 15.03.2020 till 08.02.2022 shall stand excluded for
the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any
general or special law in respect of all judicial or quasi
judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining
as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with
effect from 01.03.2022.
III. 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. 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.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the
periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and
(c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and other laws, which prescribe period(s) of
limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within
which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and
termination of proceedings.”

8. From a plain reading of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, it
is clear that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand
excluded for the purpose of limitation and that the balance period of
limitation remaining shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
RFA No. 21/2026



Page
4
of
6

The directions further provide that, in cases where the period of
limitation would have expired during the period from 15.03.2020 to
28.02.2022, all persons shall be entitled to a limitation period of 90 days
from 01.03.2022, irrespective of the actual balance period of limitation
remaining. However, if the actual balance period of limitation remaining
with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, the longer period
shall apply. From this, it is clear that, in a case where the period of
limitation expires between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, a period of 90
days for filing the proceedings would be available from 01.03.2022.
However, in a case where the period of limitation expires after
28.02.2022, the balance period of limitation or 90 days, whichever is
greater, would apply. The purport of the order of the Supreme Court is
not that, even in a case where the period of limitation expires beyond 90
days after 28.02.2022, the entire period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
is to be excluded.
9. Turning to the facts of the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the
last supply of goods was made by the plaintiff to the defendants on
01.03.2020 and the last payment was made by the defendants to the
plaintiff on 24.02.2020. As per Article 14 of the Limitation Act, the suit
was required to be filed within three years of the last payment made or
the goods delivered. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing the suit
expired on 28.02.2023, which is well beyond 90 days from 28.02.2022.
Thus, the period of limitation available to the plaintiff to file the suit was
upto 28.02.2023 and not beyond it. However, in the instant case, the suit
was filed on 03.06.2023, which was well beyond the prescribed period
of limitation. The appellant/plaintiff cannot claim exclusion of the period
RFA No. 21/2026



Page
5
of
6

from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 on the strength of the order passed by the
Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re:
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation). The contention raised by the
appellant in this regard is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted.
10. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial court. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE

Jammu:
06.11.2026
Karam Chand

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
RFA No. 21/2026



Page
6
of
6