Civil Revision No. 1544 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1544 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 08, 2010 Mrs. Avinash Kaur, Proprietor and another ...... Petitioners Versus M/s Chandigarh Gases ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Jagjit Singh Sahni, Advocate with Ms. Gurpal Kaur Dulat, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order declining the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation. The case set up by the respondent was that it was a supplier of the industrial gases while the petitioner was a consumer. As per the plaint the respondent had supplied industrial gas to the petitioner and the petitioner had to pay for the gas but the cylinders were of the respondent- company. Since the petitioner neither returned the cylinders nor paid the rent thereof the respondent had filed the suit. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on Civil Revision No. 1544 of 2010(O&M) 2 the ground that as per the case of the respondent itself the last transaction between the parties took place in 2003 and thus the instant suit having been filed in the year 2007 was barred by limitation. The learned trial court rejected the application holding that the suit of the respondent was within limitation. In my opinion even if the application of the petitioner did not disclose enough material to reject the plaint yet in the absence of evidence it was not proper for the learned trial Court to hold that the suit was within limitation. In the circumstances, however, while upholding the order of the learned trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is left open to the petitioner to seek an issue regarding limitation and in case this is done, the learned trial court is directed to decide the same independently on its own merits without reference to the impugned order. With this clarification the revision petition stands disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 08 , 2010 sunita