1 CRA 2/2010 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2010 Arvind Processors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Pataneshwari Enterprises .. Respondent Mr. Prashant Kulkarni for the petitioners. Mr. N.J. Patil for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard both sides. 2. In a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money due at the foot of a mutually open current account, the petitioners made an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the plaint be rejected on the ground that the suit was ex-facie barred by limitation. By an order dated 13th March 2009, the trial judge dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have filed this revision application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2 CRA 2/2010 period of limitation for filing of a suit for recovery of money for the goods sold is three years and covered by Article 14 of the Limitation Act. Since the goods were last supplied on 5th July 2005, the suit filed in October 2008 was ex-facie barred by limitation and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. In the plaint, the respondent (plaintiff) has alleged that there was a mutually open current account between the parties and the petitioners had purchased the goods on credit and had made payments from time to time. The plaint further alleges that an amount of Rs.1,96,702/- was due at the foot of the account. These averments show that the suit is covered by Article 1 and not by Article 14 of the Limitation Act. The extract of the account annexed to the plaint shows that the petitioners had made part payments in the account on several occasions including on 19th April 2007, 23rd August 2007 and 6th October 2007. If so, the suit filed in the year 2008 cannot be said to be ex-facie barred by limitation. The trial court, therefore, committed no error in rejecting the application. There is no merit in the revision which is hereby rejected with costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)