Latest › AP High Court › 25 September 2026
AP High Court: Plaint cannot be thrown out as time-barred without trial where an insolvency petition may amount to an acknowledgment of debt
- Court
- High Court of Andhra Pradesh
- Date of judgment
- 25 September 2026
- Case
- CRP/2609/2026
- Parties
- Marthala Jayavardhan Reddy Vs Shaik Bale Peera alias S Md Bala Peera
- Bench
- TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
- Outcome
- Disposed of
Summary
A lender sued to recover Rs 4 lakh on a 2021 promissory note. The trial court at Jammalamadugu rejected the plaint as time-barred, because the debtor's later insolvency petition listing the lender as a creditor was, it said, only an admission and not an acknowledgment that extends limitation. The High Court set that order aside and sent the case back.
The question before the court
- Can mention of a creditor and the amount due in the debtor's insolvency petition amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act?
- Can a plaint be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) when limitation turns on disputed facts?
The court's decision
The High Court held that the debtor's statement in the insolvency proceedings, that he owed Rs 4 lakh to the plaintiff, is an admission and acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, but that whether it was made within the limitation period is a disputed question of fact. Since limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, rejecting the plaint without a trial is impermissible. It set aside the order of 1 July 2026 and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the issue afresh, with no order as to costs.
Provisions referred to
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure
- Sections 18 and 19, Limitation Act, 1963
Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗
Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.
This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.