Amit Gupta Vs Sandeep Gupta (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging the Trial Court’s refusal to reject recovery suits at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The dispute arose from a loan advanced by the respondent to the petitioner in 2008. Although the petitioner argued that the recovery suit instituted in 2017 was ex facie barred by the three-year limitation period, the respondent relied upon signed balance confirmations and continuous deduction and deposit of TDS on interest, including TDS deposited up to 31.03.2015, to contend that limitation stood extended.
The High Court observed that the evidentiary effect of the documents could not finally be determined while considering an application for rejection of the plaint. It noted that Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for computation of a fresh limitation period where payment on account of a debt is made before expiry of the prescribed period, subject to the statutory requirements. Referring to Ansal Housing Ltd. v. Samyak Projects (P) Ltd. and the Division Bench decision in Samyak Projects (P) Ltd. v. Ansal Housing Ltd., the Court observed that deposit of TDS against the transaction could constitute payment on account of the debt and result in a fresh period of limitation.
