SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Jammu-based business firm seeking recovery of Rs 3.73 lakh from a hotel and restaurant, holding that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19-related extension of limitation did not save the delayed claim.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld the judgment of the Commercial Court, Jammu, which had dismissed the recovery suit as time-barred, observing that the Supreme Court’s directions on exclusion of limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic could not be interpreted to extend the filing deadline indefinitely.
“The purport of the order of the Supreme Court is not that, even in a case where the period of limitation expires beyond 90 days after 28.02.2022, the entire period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 is to be excluded,” the Bench observed.
The appeal was filed by M/s Des Raj Om Parkash, through Sanjeev Gupta, challenging a judgment and decree dated February 28, 2026, passed by the Commercial Court, Jammu, in its recovery suit against M/s 17 Miles Hotel Restaurant and others.
The appellant had sought recovery of Rs 3,73,477, along with interest at 12 per cent per annum for the period from March 1, 2020, to February 1, 2023, towards the price of goods supplied to the defendants. The suit was instituted on June 3, 2023.
According to the judgment, the defendants did not appear before the trial court and were proceeded against ex parte. After the plaintiff completed its evidence, the matter was listed for final hearing.
However, the Commercial Court noticed that the last delivery of goods had been made on March 1, 2020, while the last payment by the defendants was received on February 24, 2020. It held that the suit was required to be filed by February 28, 2023, and dismissed it as time-barred since it had been instituted on June 3, 2023.
Challenging the dismissal, the appellant argued that the transactions between the parties were commercial in nature and involved a running and mutual account. It contended that the limitation period had been extended through subsequent acknowledgements and that the trial court had failed to consider the benefit of the Supreme Court’s orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
During arguments before the High Court, however, counsel for the appellant pressed only one ground, contending that the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, should be excluded while calculating limitation in view of the Supreme Court’s directions.
The appellant submitted that after excluding this period, the recovery suit would fall within the prescribed limitation period.
Examining the Supreme Court’s orders, the High Court noted that on March 23, 2020, the apex court had taken suo motu cognizance of the difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and directed that limitation periods in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings stand extended from March 15, 2020, until further orders.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s subsequent order dated January 10, 2022, which directed that the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, be excluded while computing limitation under general and special laws.
The Supreme Court had further directed that where the limitation period would have expired between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, litigants would receive 90 days from March 1, 2022, to institute proceedings. If the actual balance period of limitation available from that date was longer than 90 days, the longer period would apply.
Explaining the scope of these directions, the High Court observed that where limitation expired during the specified COVID-19 exclusion period, the litigant would be entitled to 90 days from March 1, 2022. However, where the limitation period expired after February 28, 2022, the remaining period or 90 days, whichever was longer, would be available.
Applying this interpretation to the case, the Bench noted that the last supply of goods had taken place on March 1, 2020, and the last payment had been made on February 24, 2020.
Referring to Article 14 of the Limitation Act, the court observed that the suit was required to be instituted within three years of the last payment or delivery of goods. Accordingly, the limitation period expired on February 28, 2023.
The Bench pointed out that this deadline was well beyond 90 days from February 28, 2022, and the plaintiff had the benefit of the applicable limitation period until February 28, 2023, but not beyond that date.
Since the recovery suit was filed on June 3, 2023, the court held that it was clearly beyond limitation and the appellant could not claim exclusion of the entire period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, to justify the delay.
“The contention raised by the appellant in this regard is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted,” the Bench observed.
The court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Commercial Court, Jammu, and dismissed the appeal as lacking merit.
The appellant was represented by advocates Meenakshi Slathia Kour and Shubham Singh, while Senior Advocate R K Jain, assisted by Advocate Pramvir Singh, appeared for the respondents.
The judgment was reserved on October 29, 2026, and pronounced at Jammu on November 6, 2026.
