IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2006 MR. RAJENDRA PATEL AND ANR. ... Petitioners Versus SMT. ARUNDHATI V. N. PANVELKAR THROUGH HER ATTORNEY DR. VITHOBA V. N. PANVELKAR ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the applicants. Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- A.H.JOSHI, J. Date:- 4th August, 2009 ORDER: Heard both learned Advocates. 2. Petitioner herein had moved an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that on what is disclosed in the plaint, the suit is barred by limitation. 3. Petitioner's application has been rejected, and hence he is before this Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. Perusal of plaint discloses that cheque issued by the defendants towards payment of bill was dishonoured on 18.02.2009 and notice of dishonour for action under section 138 of N.I. Act was issued on 22.02.1998. 5. Admittedly suit is filed on 01.03.2001. 6. Plaint discloses that the cause of action arose on 18.02.1998. 7. By reckoning the period of limitation from 18th or 22nd February, 1998, on the day of suit it was delayed by 8 days, and ought not have been registered. 8. On these factual grounds plaint deserves to be rejected. Rule is made absolute. Impugned order dated 02.11.2006 is set aside and plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.139/2001/D is rejected. Rule is made absolute with costs. A.H.JOSHI, J. lh/.