MOHAMMAD ARIF vs M/S ROBUST MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION AND ORS

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%     Date of decision: 31.07.2024

+ RFA(COMM) 199/2024

MOHAMMAD ARIF …..Appellant
Through: Mohd. Ahmed with Mr Sanjeev Sharma, Advocates.

versus

M/S ROBUST MARKETING AND
COMMUNICATION AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
O R D E R
% 31.07.2024
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 30876/2024
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RFA(COMM) 199/2024 and CM APPL. 30877/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal]
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2023 passed by Mr Anil Kumar Sisodia, learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-04, Central, Delhi.
3. Via the impugned judgment, the trial court has dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant/plaintiff on the grounds of limitation.
4. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.25,32,206/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respondents/defendants.
5. This claim was based on the amounts that were due to the appellant/plaintiff against goods supplied to the respondents/defendants between 30.08.2018 and 03.12.2018.
6. According to the trial court, the last invoice that was generated is dated 03.12.2018 and the limitation, in the usual course, would have expired on 03.12.2021.
6.1 The trial court, however, granted the benefit of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020, and, thus, extended the benefit of limitation till 29.05.2022 [sic..30.05.2022].
7. Concededly, the suit for recovery was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on 15.10.2022.
8. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff says that the limitation ought not to have been calculated from 03.12.2018 but should have been calculated from the email dated 29.04.2019, when the appellant/plaintiff was called upon to match the ledger of the appellant/plaintiff with that of the respondents/defendants.
9. Even if one were to take into account the date of the aforementioned email, the suit action would not fall within the period of limitation.
10. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree.

11. The appeal is, accordingly, closed. The pending application shall also stand closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

AMIT BANSAL, J
JULY 31, 2024/ tr

RFA(COMM) 199/2024 1 of 3