The Bombay High Court has clarified the application of the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation extension order in suits where the cause of action arose before the pandemic but expired after the extended deadline. This judgment provides critical guidance on when the 90-day window under the Supreme Court's order applies and when the balance limitation period resumes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Shri Harshad Shrihari Bhandarkar, filed a summary civil suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recovery of Rs.19,65,000 from six defendants. He alleged that the defendants, including members of the Manjre and Khapekar families, induced him to deposit funds between 16.04.2018 and 02.02.2019 by promising high monthly returns of 10% on investments in the stock market. He claimed that the defendants defaulted on their promise to return the principal with profits by March 2019, ceased communication from March 2019, and refused to repay despite repeated demands. He lodged an FIR on 24.10.2019 at Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur.
Key Facts
- The plaintiff deposited amounts in multiple installments between 16.04.2018 and 02.02.2019
- Defendants promised repayment with profits by March 2019
- Communication was avoided from February 2019 and completely cut off from March 2019
- Cause of action, as pleaded, arose in March 2019
- FIR was lodged on 24.10.2019
- Suit was filed on 28.07.2023
- Plaintiff invoked the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation extension order to argue that the suit was within limitation
Procedural History
- 28.07.2023: Summary civil suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC before the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Nagpur
- 05.01.2026: Trial Court, on its own motion, held the suit was not maintainable as a summary suit and directed it to proceed as a regular civil suit (Exhibit 1)
- 05.01.2026: Trial Court rejected applications (Exhibits 11 and 14) filed by defendants seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of non-disclosure of cause of action and limitation
- 24.04.2026: Civil Revision Application No.24 of 2026 reserved for judgment
- 15.05.2026: Judgment pronounced by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Relief Sought
The applicants sought to set aside the order dated 05.01.2026 rejecting their applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. They contended that the suit was barred by limitation and should have been rejected outright. The respondent sought continuation of the suit as a regular civil suit, asserting that the limitation period was extended due to the Covid-19 lockdown.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the 90-day window under Clause (III) of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 applies when the limitation period for a suit, which commenced before the pandemic, expires after 28.02.2022, or whether the balance limitation period resumes from 01.03.2022 under Clause (I).
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Sailesh S. Sitani argued that since the last deposit was made on 02.02.2019, limitation commenced from that date and would have expired on 01.02.2022. He contended that the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 granted only a 90-day extension from 01.03.2022 for cases where limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. Since the limitation expired before 28.02.2022, the suit should have been filed by 29.05.2022. The suit filed on 28.07.2023 was therefore time-barred.
For the Respondent
Mr. Pankaj S. Tidke contended that the Supreme Court's order excluded the entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for all purposes. He argued that since the cause of action arose in March 2019, the limitation period would expire in March 2022, which falls after 28.02.2022. Therefore, Clause (I) applied, and the balance period of limitation resumed from 01.03.2022, making the suit filed on 28.07.2023 within time.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Miscellaneous Suo Motu W(P) No.3 of 2020. It emphasized that Clause (I) provides for exclusion of the entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and restoration of the balance limitation period from 01.03.2022. Clause (III) specifically addresses cases where the limitation period expired during the excluded period.
"Clause (III) deals with a specific situation where period of limitation expires between the period intervening from 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. The other clauses of the order do not deal with situation where the period of limitation as per Limitation Act expires between the said dates."
The Court held that the plaint averments, taken at face value under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, indicated that the cause of action arose in March 2019. The limitation period of three years would therefore expire in March 2022, which is after 28.02.2022. Since the limitation did not expire during the excluded period, Clause (III) did not apply. Instead, Clause (I) governed, and the balance limitation period resumed from 01.03.2022. The suit filed on 28.07.2023 was therefore within limitation.
The Court further noted that the question of whether each deposit created a separate cause of action, and whether limitation commenced from the date of deposit or demand, remained open for determination at trial. It emphasized that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic remedy and should not be ordered unless the bar of limitation is absolutely clear on the face of the plaint.
The Verdict
The revision application was dismissed. The Court upheld the trial court's order directing the suit to proceed as a regular civil suit. The suit filed on 28.07.2023 was held to be within limitation, as the balance limitation period resumed from 01.03.2022 under Clause (I) of the Supreme Court's order. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit on merits, with the parties free to lead evidence on the starting point of limitation and whether multiple causes of action arose.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Expiry After 28.02.2022 Triggers Balance Period, Not 90-Day Window
- Practitioners must determine whether the limitation period expired during the excluded period (15.03.2020 - 28.02.2022) or after it
- If expiry occurs after 28.02.2022, the balance limitation period resumes from 01.03.2022, regardless of when the cause of action arose
- The 90-day window under Clause (III) applies only if the limitation period expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022
Plaint Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11 Requires Absolute Certainty
- Courts must not reject plaints on limitation grounds unless the bar is unambiguous on the face of the pleading
- Where two interpretations of limitation commencement are possible (e.g., date of deposit vs. date of demand), the plaint must be allowed to proceed
- Evidence on the nature of the transaction and exact date of default must be recorded at trial
Covid-19 Extension Orders Are Not Blanket Extensions
- The Supreme Court's orders are layered and context-specific
- Practitioners must cross-reference the exact date of limitation expiry with the precise clause of the order
- Relying on vague assertions of "total exclusion" without distinguishing between clauses invites rejection
