Facts of the Case

Bajaj Electricals Limited had supplied electric poles and high mast lights worth Rs.68,39,100/- (including GST) to M/s Ramgopal Somani and its partners under a 2016 purchase order, of which Rs.31,39,100/- remained outstanding after a partial payment. After a demand notice and repeated returns of the recovery suit on jurisdictional and procedural grounds by different forums, the suit was finally filed before the Commercial Court, Naya Raipur, in August 2025. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint as time-barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; the Trial Court rejected that application, holding the suit within limitation. In revision, the High Court (in an earlier order dated 12.01.2026) had set aside that finding to the extent of directing the Trial Court to frame and decide limitation as a preliminary issue after recording evidence, rather than finally deciding it was within limitation. Bajaj Electricals, a non-party defendant in that revision, filed this review petition against the 12.01.2026 order, citing non-service of notice and a subsequently-noticed Supreme Court judgment.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the review petitioner was denied a fair hearing due to non-service of notice in the earlier revision proceedings.
  2. Whether the binding Supreme Court precedent (Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala & Co., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 48) warranted reconsideration of the 12.01.2026 order.
  3. Whether the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permitted re-examination of these limitation questions.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Non-service of notice in the revision proceedings caused serious prejudice.
  • The binding Supreme Court judgment in Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association, which held that limitation for a suit refiled under Order VII Rule 13 CPC runs from the date of rejection of the earlier plaint under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, was not brought to the Court's notice and directly governed the case.
  • Reconsideration on undisputed dates would avoid unnecessary trial delay.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Not separately elaborated, as the review petition was examined and dismissed largely on the review petitioner's own submissions and the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

Court Order / Findings

  • The earlier order was procedural -- it did not finally decide the limitation question but only directed the Trial Court to frame and decide it as a preliminary issue after evidence -- so it caused no prejudice warranting review.
  • Applicability of the cited Supreme Court judgment itself depended on disputed factual aspects requiring evidence, and could not be conclusively determined in review.
  • Reiterating that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited and cannot be used for rehearing on merits, the Court dismissed the review petition as devoid of merit.

Important Clarification

This is a civil recovery suit governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Commercial Courts Act procedure); GST appears only as a component of the sale price in the underlying commercial transaction and plays no role in the legal reasoning, which is entirely about review jurisdiction and limitation.

Sections Involved

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII Rule 1 (review), Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13
  • Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 26, 41, 113; Section 14
  • Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A

Decision – In Favour of

Respondents (M/s Ramgopal Somani and partners) – the review petition was dismissed; the underlying recovery suit's limitation issue remains to be tried before the Commercial Court.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Case Number: REVP No. 63 of 2026
Coram: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Date of Order: 23 March 2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.