Chattisgarh High Court
Bajaj Electricals Limited vs M/S Ramgopal Somani on 23 March, 2026
Digitally signed by
YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date: 2026.03.28
14:34:58 +0530
1
2026:CGHC:13703
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 63 of 2026
Bajaj Electricals Limited, Through Power of Attorney Holder Shri
Ashwani Samal, Aged About 47 Years, S/o Shri Abhimanyu Samal,
Address 406, Wallfort Ozone, 4th Floor, Near Fafadih Chowk, Raipur,
C.G. Pin 492001.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - M/s Ramgopal Somani Station Road, Champa, Tahsil Champa, Distt.
Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ramgopal Somani S/o Late Shri Ganesh Narayan Somani Aged
About 69 Years Partners of M/s Ramgopal Somani, And R/o Barpali
Chowk, Champa, Tahsil Champa, Distt. Jajgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Varun Kumar Somani S/o Shri Ramgopal Somani Aged About 34
Years Partners of M/s Ramgopal Somani, And R/o Barpali Chowk,
Champa, Tahsil Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Rahul Somani S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Somani Aged About 36 Years
Partners of M/s Ramgopal Somani And R/o Barpali Chowk, Champa,
Tahsil Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Mrs. Rekha Somani W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Somani Aged About 59
Years Partners of M/s Ramgopal Somani And R/o Barpali Chowk,
Champa, Tahsil Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate (through Video
Conference) assisted by Mr. Harshmander
Rastogi, Advocate
2
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
23.03.2026
1. By the present petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the
order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Civil Revision No.11 of 2026,
whereby this Court disposed of the civil revision preferred by the
respondents herein, holding that, considering the aforesaid
aspects of the matter, the impugned order dated 06.12.2025
passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level),
Raipur in Commercial Suit No. 12-B/2025 was set aside, and the
learned Trial Court was directed to frame a preliminary issue on
the question of limitation, afford adequate opportunity to the
parties to lead evidence, and thereafter decide the said issue in
accordance with law; it was further observed that if, upon
recording evidence, the Trial Court arrives at a conclusion that the
suit is within limitation, it shall proceed to adjudicate the suit on
merits, and if the suit is found to be barred by limitation,
appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, it being
held that the issue of limitation, as a mixed question of law and
fact, is required to be adjudicated during the course of trial.
2. The facts of the case, as presented before this Court, are that the
plaintiff, a company registered under the provisions of the
Companies Act, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.72,35,625.05/-
through its authorized power of attorney holder. It was pleaded
that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos.2 to 5
3
are its partners. As per the plaint, the defendants approached the
plaintiff on 21.01.2016 and placed a purchase order for supply of
electric poles and high mast lights, pursuant to which an advance
of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid. The total value of the goods was
Rs.68,39,100/- including GST, and the plaintiff claims to have
supplied the material between 27.03.2016 and 10.05.2016.
According to the plaintiff’s ledger, an amount of Rs.61,39,100/-
remained outstanding. It is further stated that a cheque issued by
the defendants towards the said amount was dishonoured, leading
to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Thereafter, a partial payment of Rs.30,00,000/- was made on
09.01.2017, leaving a balance of Rs.31,39,100/-. A demand notice
dated 18.11.2019 was issued, and the plaintiff initially filed a civil
suit on 19.12.2019, which came to be returned on 12.04.2023 for
want of territorial jurisdiction. The suit presented before the District
Judge, Janjgir was again returned on 27.06.2023 at the admission
stage on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, a suit
filed before the Commercial Court, Naya Raipur was rejected on
03.10.2023 for non-compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, and thereafter, upon alleged compliance, the present
suit came to be filed on 21.08.2025.
3. After service of summons, the defendants filed applications under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that,
as per the plaint averments, the last payment was made on
09.01.2017 and thus the cause of action arose on that date. It was
4
argued that the suit, being one for recovery arising out of
commercial transactions, is governed by Articles 26 and 41 of the
Limitation Act prescribing a limitation period of three years, and
therefore the suit filed on 21.08.2025 is clearly barred by limitation.
It was further contended that proceedings before forums lacking
jurisdiction or rejection of plaints on technical grounds do not
extend limitation. The plaintiff opposed the applications contending
that the earlier plaints were rejected on technical grounds and that
a fresh cause of action arose on 03.10.2023 upon rejection of the
plaint for non-compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, bringing the suit within limitation under Article 113 of
the Limitation Act, and also claimed benefit of exclusion of time
under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The learned Trial Court, by
the impugned order, accepted the contention of the plaintiff and
rejected the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the
suit to be within limitation.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2025, defendants
No.03 and 05 have filed the civil revision bearing Civil Revision
No.11 of 2026, which was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 12.01.2026.
5. Calling in question the impugned order dated 12.01.2026, the
review petitioner has filed the present review petition.
6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 12.01.2026 has been passed in the
5
absence of notice to the present petitioner in the revision
proceedings and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of an
effective opportunity of hearing. It is contended that due to non-
service of notice, the petitioner could not place its submissions,
factual matrix, and relevant legal position before this Hon’ble
Court, which has resulted in serious prejudice. Learned counsel
submits that it is a settled principle that where an affected party
has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard, the Court may
exercise its review jurisdiction to ensure that the matter is
adjudicated after hearing all concerned parties. It is further
submitted that the learned Commercial Court, while passing the
order dated 06.12.2025, had relied upon the binding judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Evangelical Lutheran
Church Trust Association vs. Sri Bala & Co., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 48, which directly governs the issue involved in the
present case. Learned counsel submits that the said judgment
lays down that where a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11
CPC and a subsequent suit is instituted under Order VII Rule 13
CPC, the limitation for such subsequent suit is to be governed by
Article 113 of the Limitation Act, and the right to sue would accrue
from the date of rejection of the earlier plaint. It is contended that
the said binding precedent does not appear to have been brought
to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the revision.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the material dates relevant to
the issue of limitation, including the date of rejection of the earlier
6
plaint i.e. 03.10.2023 and the date of institution of the subsequent
suit i.e. 21.08.2025, are admitted and not in dispute between the
parties. Therefore, the issue involved was essentially one of
application of settled legal principles to undisputed facts, rather
than requiring detailed evidence. It is contended that the learned
Commercial Court, after considering the entire factual background
and applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
had rightly come to the conclusion that the suit was within
limitation. It is also submitted that the direction issued by this Court
to frame a preliminary issue on limitation and to decide the same
after recording evidence may unnecessarily prolong the
proceedings in a commercial dispute where expedition is the
legislative intent. Learned counsel submits that when the
foundational facts are admitted and the legal position is clear,
relegating the parties to trial on the issue of limitation would defeat
the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC as well as the scheme of
the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates speedy disposal of
commercial disputes.
8. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the present review
petition has been filed bona fide and in the interest of justice,
seeking an opportunity to place complete submissions and binding
precedents before this Court. It is prayed that the impugned order
dated 12.01.2026 be reviewed and the matter be reconsidered
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, so as to
7
ensure a fair, complete, and legally sound adjudication of the issue
involved.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the review petitioner and upon perusal of the material available
on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground
warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is made
out. The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is
extremely limited and does not permit rehearing of the matter on
merits or substitution of a different view merely because another
view is possible. The power of review can be exercised only in
cases of error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new
and important matter which could not be produced earlier despite
due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason akin thereto.
10. In the present case, this Court, while passing the order dated
12.01.2026 in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2026, had examined the
issue in detail and recorded a categorical finding that the question
of limitation, in the facts of the case, involves mixed questions of
law and fact. It was observed that although certain dates are not in
dispute, the entitlement of the plaintiff to seek exclusion of time
under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the applicability of different
Articles of the Limitation Act, and the effect of earlier proceedings
instituted before various forums, are aspects which require factual
adjudication regarding diligence, bona fides and jurisdiction. Such
issues cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of
8
pleadings without permitting the parties to lead evidence. This
Court had, therefore, set aside the order of the learned
Commercial Court to the limited extent that instead of finally
holding the suit to be within limitation, a preliminary issue on
limitation ought to be framed and decided after affording
opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The direction issued
by this Court is thus procedural in nature, intended to ensure a fair
adjudication of the issue of limitation in accordance with law,
without foreclosing the rights of either party. The same neither
decides the issue finally nor causes any prejudice to the review
petitioner so as to warrant interference in review.
11. So far as the reliance placed by the review petitioner on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Evangelical
Lutheran Church Trust Association (supra) is concerned, this
Court finds that the applicability of the said judgment itself
depends upon the factual matrix of the case, including the nature
of earlier proceedings, the circumstances in which the plaint came
to be rejected, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to invoke the
benefit of relevant provisions of the Limitation Act. These aspects,
as already observed, require adjudication on evidence and cannot
be conclusively determined in exercise of revisional jurisdiction or
in review proceedings.
12. The contention regarding non-service of notice also does not
persuade this Court to exercise review jurisdiction, inasmuch as
9
the order passed in the revision petition does not finally adjudicate
the rights of the parties but merely directs the Trial Court to decide
the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue after affording full
opportunity to both sides. The review petitioner shall have ample
opportunity to raise all permissible pleas, including those based on
limitation and binding precedents, before the learned Trial Court.
13. It is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction under Order
XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is extremely limited.
Review is permissible only to correct a manifest error or an error
apparent on the face of the record. Re-appreciation or re-
evaluation of evidence, reassessment of facts, or substitution of
one conclusion for another amounts to appellate jurisdiction, which
is impermissible in review proceedings. (Devaraju Pillai v.
Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and
others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4,
Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others 5 and
Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.)
14. Very recently in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and another, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1927, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
as under :-
1 (1987) 1 SCC 61
2 (1995) 1 SCC 170
3 (1996) 10 SCC 174
4 AIR 2000 SC 1650
5 (2013) 2 SCC 1
6 (2017) 4 SCC 692
10
“15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal
cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred
by the statute or the rules having the force of a
statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be
assumed unless it is conferred by law on the
authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order
47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of
review of the courts. The power of review is
different from appellate power and is subject to
the following limitations to maintain the finality
of judicial decisions:
15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of
an appeal and have to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC. (Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhary, (1995) 1 SCC 170).
15.2 Review is not to be confused with
appellate powers, which may enable an
appellate court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the subordinate court. (Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma,
(1979) 4 SCC 389).
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order
47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be reheard and
corrected. A review petition, it must be
remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
(Pursion Devtu. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC
715).
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for
the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute
11
a view. Such powers can be exercised within
the limits specified in the statute governing the
exercise of power. (Lily Thomas Union of India,
(2000) 6 SCC 224).
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal
over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the
general rule that once a judgment is signed or
pronounced, it should not be altered,
(Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC
663). Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and
palpable errors. (Shivdev Singh State of
Punjah, AIR (1963) SC 1909).”
15. The grounds raised in the present review petition, including the
submissions relating to limitation, applicability of Article 113 of the
Limitation Act, and reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust
Association (supra) essentially amount to seeking a rehearing of
the matter on merits. The petitioner has attempted to assail the
correctness of the findings recorded by this Court in the order
dated 12.01.2026 by re-arguing issues which have already been
considered. It is well settled that the review jurisdiction under
Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is extremely
limited and does not permit re-appreciation of the issues or
substitution of a different view merely because another
interpretation is possible. The contentions raised by the petitioner,
which seek reconsideration of the conclusions on the nature of
12
limitation and the necessity of evidence, fall outside the
permissible scope of review.
16. Even otherwise, upon consideration of the submissions on merits,
no error apparent on the face of the record is made out in the
impugned order dated 12.01.2026. This Court, while passing the
said order, had taken into account the entire factual background,
including the admitted dates, prior proceedings, and the rival
contentions of the parties, and had rightly held that the issue of
limitation in the present case involves mixed questions of law and
fact requiring adjudication upon evidence. The reliance placed by
the petitioner on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court does not advance the case of the petitioner at this stage,
inasmuch as the applicability of the said judgment itself depends
upon factual aspects which are yet to be adjudicated by the
learned Trial Court. The directions issued by this Court are
procedural in nature and do not finally determine the rights of the
parties.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the
face of the record, or any other sufficient ground warranting
exercise of review jurisdiction. The impugned order dated
12.01.2026 passed in Civil Revision No.11 of 2026 does not
suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error calling
for interference.
13
18. Accordingly, the review petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to
be and is hereby dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
14
Head-Note
The review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely
limited and cannot be invoked for rehearing or reappreciation of the
merits, as the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A
rehearing on merits is impermissible, the power of review being an
exception to the rule of finality of judgments, exercisable only to prevent
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.