C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 1 of 23

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 11

th

August 2026

Pronounced on : 25

th

September 2026

Uploaded on : 26

th

September 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010277722026

+ C.R.P. 186/2026 & CM APPL. 40898/2026 CM APPL.

40899/2026 CM APPL. 40900/2026

ANUPAM GUPTA .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Rashi Bansal and Ms. Deepti

Thapa, Advocates.

versus

HERSHIT KUMAR GUPTA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Gauravjeet Narwan, Ms.

Aanchal Singh & Mr. S. M. Aamir,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This petition invites interpretation of directions passed by the

Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic relating to the extension of

the period of limitation [In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,

Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020].

2. This Revision Petition has been filed for setting aside impugned

order dated 30

th

April 2026 passed by the District Judge, East District,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No. 542/2023, which dismissed the

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 2 of 23

application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(‘CPC’) filed by the petitioner/defendant for rejection of the plaint as being

barred by limitation. For this purpose, it will be useful to record the

sequence of events.

3. A suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with interest was filed

by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. It was claimed

that the families of the plaintiff and the defendant had close family ties for

more than 35 years. In October 2018, the defendant's father had approached

the father of the plaintiff seeking financial help to set up a new business.

The plaintiff and his father agreed to transfer a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to

the father of the defendant. The amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was transferred

from the plaintiff to the defendant’s father. It is alleged that over a period

of time, when they asked for the return of the loan, various excuses were

given not to comply.

4. On 11

th

May 2021, father of the defendant passed away, and the

responsibility of the business was passed on to the defendant. Yet again,

despite requests and reminders, the defendant failed to repay the loan. A

demand letter was sent on 12

th

July 2023 through the post, which was

delivered on 13

th

July 2023. Since the amount was not paid, the suit was

filed in October 2023. In the suit, it was stated that the limitation started

from 25

th

October 2018 and, taking into account the Supreme Court’s

directives on extension of limitation during the COVID-19, the period from

15

th

March 2020 till 28

th

February 2022 stands excluded.

Impugned Order

5. In application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the defendant

primarily raised the issue that the suit is time-barred and should

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 3 of 23

accordingly be dismissed. Defendant argued that even after availing the

benefit of exclusion provided under In Re: Cognizance for Extension of

Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, the suit is time-

barred. The Trial Court noted that the issue is only of correct interpretation

and application of the directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning

exclusion and extension of limitation during the pandemic period.

6. The Court observed that limitation would ordinarily have expired on

25

th

October 2021. As on 15

th

March 2020, a balance period of 1 year, 7

months and 10 days remained. This balance period was preserved and

became available from 01

st

March 2022. Thereby, limitation would have

expired on 11

th

October 2023. The Court held that since suit was filed on

09

th

October 2023, it was held to be within limitation. Trial Court rejected

the argument of the defendant that plaintiff was entitled to only 90 days

from 01

st

March 2022.

7. The Trial Court dismissed the Order VII Rule 11 application and

concluded that the grounds raised under the application are not made out.

Supreme Court Directives

8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract, in

chronological sequence, the various directions issued by the Supreme Court

in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition

(C) No. 3 of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the interpretation

and effect of these successive directions are directly relevant to the issue of

limitation arising in the present case.

A. In re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2020) 19 SCC 10

[hereinafter ‘I

st

directive’]: On 23

rd

March 2020, the Supreme Court

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 4 of 23

directed that the period of limitation in all petitions, applications, suits and

appeals will stand extended with effect from 15

th

March 2020 till further

orders. The Supreme Court held as under:

“To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that

lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file

such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals

across the country including this Court, it is hereby

ordered that a period of limitation in all such

proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed

under the general law or Special Laws whether

condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15

th

March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this

Court in present proceedings.”

B. In re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2021) 5 SCC 452

[hereinafter ‘II

nd

directive’]: On 08

th

March 2021, when the COVID-19

pandemic was still prevailing, the Supreme Court directed that the period

from 15

th

March 2020 to 14

th

March 2021 be excluded for the purposes of

limitation and issued the following directions:

“1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit,

appeal, application or proceeding, the period from

15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded.

Consequently, the balance period of limitation

remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become

available with effect from 15.03.2021.

2. In cases where the limitation would have expired

during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021,

notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation

remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of

90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual

balance period of limitation remaining, with effect

from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer

period shall apply.

3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall

also stand excluded in computing the periods

prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 5 of 23

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of

the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and

(c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of

limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits

(within which the court or tribunal can condone delay)

and termination of proceedings.”

C. In re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) 18 SCC 250

[hereinafter ‘III

rd

directive’]: On 23

rd

September 2021, the Supreme Court

extended the period from 15

th

March 2020 till 02

nd

October 2021 and

passed the following directions:

“8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021

with the following directions:

I. In computing the period of limitation for any

suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period

from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand

excluded. Consequently, the balance period of

limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any,

shall become available with effect from

03.10.2021.

II. In cases where the limitation would have

expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till

02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance

period of limitation remaining, all persons shall

have a limitation period of 90 days from

03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period

of limitation remaining, with effect from

03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer

period shall apply.

III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021

shall also stand excluded in computing the

periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other

laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 6 of 23

instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which

the court or tribunal can condone delay) and

termination of proceedings.

IV. The Government of India shall amend the

guidelines for containment zones, to state.

“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical

emergencies, provision of essential goods and

services, and other necessary functions, such as,

time bound applications, including for legal

purposes, and educational and job-related

requirements.”

D. In re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC 117

[hereinafter ‘IV

th

directive’]: On 10

th

January 2022, the Supreme Court

further extended the period from 15

th

March 2020 till 28

th

February 2022 in

view of the prevailing conditions and passed the following directions:

“5. Taking into consideration the arguments

advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the

surge of the virus on public health and adversities

faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem

it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022

with the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in

continuation of the subsequent orders dated

08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is

directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till

28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes

of limitation as may be prescribed under any

general or special laws in respect of all judicial

or quasi­judicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation

remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become

available with effect from 01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have

expired during the period between

15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding

the actual balance period of limitation remaining,

all persons shall have a limitation period of 90

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 7 of 23

days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual

balance period of limitation remaining, with effect

from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that

longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from

15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand

excluded in computing the periods prescribed

under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b)

and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which

prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting

proceedings, outer limits (within which the court

or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of

proceedings.”

(emphasis added)

Submissions on behalf of petitioner

9. Ms. Rashi Bansal, counsel for petitioner, has relied upon the

following judgments in support of her submissions:

9.1. Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd.

& Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.3007-3008/2020, decided on 18

th

September

2020): In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a challenge to an

order passed by the NCLT dismissing an application seeking condonation

of delay in filing an appeal. The appellants relied upon the Supreme

Court’s directives on limitation during COVID-19. The Supreme Court

held as under:

“19. But we do not think that the appellants can take

refuge under the above order. What was extended by

the above order of this Court was only “the period of

limitation” and not the period upto which delay can be

condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the

statute. The above order passed by this Court was

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 8 of 23

intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were

prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from

initiating proceedings within the period of limitation

prescribed by general or special law. It is needless to

point out that the law of limitation finds its root in two

latin maxims, one of which is Vigilantibus Non

Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt which means that the

law will assist only those who are vigilant about their

rights and not those who sleep over them.”

(emphasis added)

9.1.1. In the opinion of this Court, the factual matrix dealt with by the

Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter is distinguishable from the facts of

the present case since it was dealing with condonation of delay. The

limitation for filing the appeal expired on 18

th

March 2020, whereas the

appeal was filed on 20

th

July 2020. The lockdown was imposed only on

24

th

March 2020, and the Court held that there was no impediment to filing

the appeal before 18

th

March 2020.

9.2. Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC

180:

9.2.1. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged an order passed

by the High Court of Chhattisgarh upholding the order of the Commercial

Court, Chhattisgarh, declining the appellant/defendant’s prayer for grant of

further time to file the written statement. The Commercial Court and the

High Court had stated that, in view of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of

the CPC, as substituted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the

defendant’s right to file a written statement stood forfeited upon expiry of

120 days. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant/defendant relied upon

the Supreme Court’s directives on limitation during COVID-19. In its

assessment, the Supreme Court, inter alia, stated as under:

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 9 of 23

“28. As regards the operation and effect of the

orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of

2020, noticeable it is that even though in the

initial order dated 23-3-2020, this Court provided

that the period of limitation in all the proceedings,

irrespective of that prescribed under general or

special laws, whether condonable or not, shall

stand extended w.e.f. 15-3-2020 but, while

concluding the matter on 23-9-2021, this Court

specifically provided for exclusion of the period

from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021. A look at the

scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear

that while extension of prescribed period in

relation to an appeal or certain applications has

been envisaged under Section 5, the exclusion of

time has been provided in the provisions like

Sections 12 to 15 thereof. When a particular

period is to be excluded in relation to any suit or

proceeding, essentially the reason is that such a

period is accepted by law to be the one not

referable to any indolence on the part of the

litigant, but being relatable to either the force of

circumstances or other requirements of law (like

that of mandatory two months' notice for a suit

against the Government [ Vide Section 15 of the

Limitation Act, 1963.] ). The excluded period, as

a necessary consequence, results in enlargement

of time, over and above the period prescribed.

28.1. Having regard to the purpose for which this

Court had exercised the plenary powers under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India and issued

necessary orders from time to time in SMWP No.

3 of 2020, we are clearly of the view that the

period envisaged finally in the order dated 23-9-

2021 is required to be excluded in computing the

period of limitation even for filing the written

statement and even in cases where the delay is

otherwise not condonable. It gets perforce

reiterated that the orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 10 of 23

were of extraordinary measures in extraordinary

circumstances and their operation cannot be

curtailed with reference to the ordinary operation

of law.

28.2. In other words, the orders passed by this

Court on 23-3-2020, 10-7-2020, 27-4-2021 and

23-9-2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 leave nothing

to doubt that special and extraordinary measures

were provided by this Court for advancing the

cause of justice in the wake of challenges thrown

by the pandemic; and their applicability cannot be

denied in relation to the period prescribed for

filing the written statement. It would be

unrealistic and illogical to assume that while this

Court has provided for exclusion of period for

institution of the suit and therefore, a suit

otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation

had expired between 15-3-2020 to 2-10-2021)

could still be filed within 90 days from 3-10-2021

but the period for filing written statement, if

expired during that period, has to operate against

the defendant.

28.3. Therefore, in view of the orders passed by

this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, we have no

hesitation in holding that the time-limit for filing

the written statement by the appellant in the

subject suit did not come to an end on 6-5-2021.”

(emphasis added)

9.2.2. In the opinion of this Court, this decision will also not come to the

rescue of the petitioner, considering that the Supreme Court merely

clarified that the III

rd

directive applied to period for filing the written

statement as well. However, the observations of the Supreme Court relating

to exclusion of stated period and enlargement of time ‘over and above’ the

prescribed period is precipitative.

9.3. Aditya Khaitan v. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. 2023 SCC

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 11 of 23

OnLine SC 1241:

9.3.1. A challenge was laid before the Supreme Court against the judgment

of the High Court of Calcutta, which dismissed the applications and denied

taking the defendant's written statements on record. The High Court had

held that the applications could not be allowed as the period of 30 days for

filing the written statements had expired on 8

th

March 2020, i.e. prior to

15

th

March 2020, from which date the II

nd

directive was made applicable. It

was contended that the further period of 90 days had not expired when the

II

nd

directive was passed. The High Court, therefore, held as under:

“22. A perusal of para 2.3 of the above order shows

that this Court directed that the period from

15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 will stand excluded in

computing:-

a) the period prescribed under 23(4) and 29-A of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;

b) Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015;

c) provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881; and

(d) any other laws which prescribe period of limitation

for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which

the court or tribunal can condone delay) and

termination of proceedings.

23. As would be clear from hereinabove, the very

basis of the judgment in Sagufa Ahmed (supra) that

under the 23.03.2020 order, only the period of

limitation has been extended and not the period up to

which delay can be condoned, has been taken away by

expanding the protection by excluding the period even

for computing outer limits within which the court or

tribunal can condone delay. This is an important

subsequent aspect which has a great bearing in

deciding the present controversy.”

(emphasis added)

9.3.2. This decision of the Supreme Court merely clarifies what the various

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 12 of 23

COVID-19 directives had provided and the extent to which they would

apply to the extension of the period for filing written statements. On the

facts of the case, the Court held that the 30-day period expired on 8

th

March

2020 and the 120-day period expired on 6

th

June 2020. The application for

extension was filed on 20

th

January 2021. Therefore, applying the II

nd

directive, the application was filed within time. The Court specifically held

that the principle underlying the II

nd

directive would enure to the benefit of

the applicants.

9.4. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd. (2024) 5 SCC 313:

9.4.1. Issue of limitation for claiming an amount for recovery was before

the Supreme Court. The Court noted that ordinarily the period of limitation

available to the plaintiff for raising a claim would come to an end after the

expiry of three years, i.e. on 27

th

March 2021. However, due to the COVID

directives, the period from 15

th

March 2020 till 28

th

February 2022 was

considered to be excluded. Accordingly, the balance period of limitation

available on 15

th

March 2020 would become available from 01

st

March

2022. The Supreme Court, taking a cue from the decision in Prakash

Corporates (supra), stated as under:

“84. The effect of the above-referred order of this

Court in the facts of the present case is that the

balance limitation left on 15.03.2020 would become

available w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The balance period of

limitation remaining on 15.03.2020 can be calculated

by computing the number of days between 15.03.2020

and 27.03.2021, which is the day when the limitation

period would have come to an end under ordinary

circumstances. The balance period thus comes to 1

year 13 days. This period of 1 year 13 days becomes

available to the petitioner from 01.03.2022, thereby

meaning that the limitation period available to the

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 13 of 23

petitioner for invoking arbitration proceedings would

have come to an end on 13.03.2023.”

(emphasis added)

9.4.2. However, this issue may not yet again provide to the petitioner's

advantage, considering that the matter before the Supreme Court in Arif

Azim (supra) related to an application filed under Section 11 (6) of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) to appoint an

Arbitrator. The Supreme Court was considering the issue of whether the

Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application filed under Section 11

(6) of A&C Act.

9.4.3. The Court responded to this question, stating that three years’ period

was very long for filing an application under Section 11 (6) of A&C Act

and opined that Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the

Act, prescribing a specific period of limitation.

9.5. Enforcement Directorate v. Vikas WSP Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine Del

6163:

9.5.1. The Division Bench of this Court was dealing with an issue as to

whether the Supreme Court’s directives would apply to proceedings under

Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’),

which mandates that provisional attachment must be confirmed within a

maximum period of 180 days. While considering the same, the Court stated

as under, which would also present an interpretation of the Supreme Court

Directives:

“(n). Further, in cases where the limitation expired

between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the Court granted

all persons a fresh limitation period of 90 days from

01.03.2022, irrespective of the actual balance period

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 14 of 23

otherwise available.

(o). If, however, the balance period of limitation

available on 01.03.2022 exceeded 90 days, then such

longer period would apply.”

(emphasis added)

Submissions on behalf of respondent

10. Counsel for the respondent relied upon Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Vatsal

Mittal 2022 SCC OnLine Del 711, wherein a Single Bench of this Court,

while dealing with a petition filed by the defendant, considered a case

where the Trial Court had taken the written statement off the record on the

ground that, according to the defendant’s own case, noted that the

summons had been served on 23

rd

March 2021 and the written statement

had been filed on 26

th

August 2021, i.e. after expiry of the maximum period

prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, as applicable to

Commercial Courts. The appellant pleaded the benefit of the IV

th

directive.

The High Court held that the entire period from 23

rd

March 2021 to 26th

July 2021 fell within the period contemplated by the Supreme Court in IV

th

directive and, therefore, stood excluded.

11. Certain other decisions, though not cited by counsel, useful for

establishing an interpretation are as under:

11.1. Chroma-Ator Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s Prashant

Generator Co.) v. Indraprastha Gas Limited 2024:DHC:2569.

11.1.1. The matter concerned a petition filed under Section 11(6) of

the A&C Act, 1996, wherein a Single Judge of this Court was dealing with

a plea whether the petition was barred by limitation. The invocation of

arbitration was dated 04

th

November 2022, whereas the cause of action had

arisen in 2018. Reliance was placed on the extension of the period of

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 15 of 23

limitation pursuant to the COVID-19 directives.

11.1.2. This Court relied upon Arif Azim (supra), a decision of the

Supreme Court. Applying the said interpretation, and considering that the

limitation period had expired on 7

th

November 2021, the period from 15

th

March 2020 to 7

th

November 2021 was excluded and the limitation period

recommenced from 1

st

March 2022. The invocation of arbitration was,

therefore, held not to be barred by limitation.

11.2. Shri Jai Prakash Tayal & Ors. v. Smt Sunita Aggarwal

2026:DHC:7031-DB:

11.2.1. In an appeal against the dismissal of an application under

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the issue before the Division Bench was

whether the suit, instituted on 27

th

May 2024, was barred by limitation,

despite the cause of action having arisen on 8

th

January 2020. The Division

Bench held that the period from 15

th

March 2020 to 28

th

February 2022

would stand excluded and that the period of limitation for the suit would

consequently stand extended till December 2024. Since the suit was

instituted on 27

th

May 2024, it was, therefore, held to be within the

prescribed period of limitation.

Analysis

12. In the facts of this case, there is no dispute regarding the starting

point of the period of limitation, i.e. 24

th

October 2018. Accordingly, the

limitation would expire on 23

rd

October 2021, which falls within the period

of 15

th

March 2020 to 28

th

February 2022. Therefore, IV

th

directive would

apply.

13. Ms. Rashi Bansal states that, as per IV

th

directive, only a limitation

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 16 of 23

period of 90 days would be available from 01

st

March 2022. The suit was

filed on 9

th

October 2023, which is approximately 19 months from the post-

COVID period, starting from 01

st

March 2022.

14. However, in the opinion of this Court, if one takes IV

th

directive into

consideration in its true spirit and intent, then the full period from 15

th

March 2020 till 28

th

February 2022, which is approximately 23 months and

13 days, would be available from 28

th

February 2022 and, therefore, the

suit would be filed within the period of limitation.

15. This aspect has already been addressed by the Division Bench in

Shri Jai Prakash Tayal (supra). However, even if a cue is taken from the

observations in Prakash Corporates (supra), the interpretation adopted by

the Supreme Court itself supports the same finding.

16. In Prakash Corporates (supra), the Supreme Court has clarified that

where a particular period is liable to be excluded in relation to any suit or

proceeding, owing either to circumstances or to the requirements of law,

such excluded period results in an enlargement of time ‘over and above’

the limitation period otherwise prescribed.

17. The assertion of Ms. Bansal that if the limitation period got

exhausted during the stated period from 15

th

March 2020 till 28

th

February

2022 (‘hereinafter COVID period’), then only 90 days would be available

from 01

st

March 2022, does not take into account certain aspects. First, the

primary directive issued by the Supreme Court, which was stated

categorically in the II

nd

directive and reiterated in the III

rd

and IV

th

directives, was that, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, the

COVID period would stand excluded. As per the II

nd

directive, the period

ended on 14

th

March 2021; as per the III

rd

directive, it was extended till

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 17 of 23

02

nd

October 2021; and by the IV

th

directive, till 28

th

February 2022.

18. Once a directive for exclusion has been given, the period which fell

within the COVID period would automatically become available from 01

st

March 2022. This would be in consonance with the view of the Supreme

Court in Prakash Corporates (supra), on the essential principle that

exclusion of a period results in enlargement of time ‘over and above’ the

period prescribed.

19. The issue under consideration is whether the 2

nd

part of the II

nd

, III

rd

and IV

th

directives curtailed the period, so added by exclusion, to only 90

days. It would be contrary to logic and reason to hold that, having provided

for exclusion of the COVID period and consequent enlargement of the

limitation period, the Supreme Court intended to restrict the benefit of such

exclusion to a maximum period of 90 days. Such an interpretation would

lead to anomalous and incongruous results.

20. The consequences of such an interpretation become evident from the

following illustrations:

i. Limitation commenced before the excluded period and the balance

remaining is more than 90 days after completion of the period:

As an illustration, if limitation in a suit commenced on 17

th

May

2018, the limitation period would expire on 16

th

May 2021, i.e.

during the excluded period. Since the balance period remaining as on

15th March 2020 is more than 90 days, the longer period would

apply. If Ms. Bansal's contention is accepted, only 90 days would

apply. This would, in effect, mean that a lesser period has been made

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 18 of 23

available by the Supreme Court to the litigant. Diagrammatic

representation of the same is provided below for easy reference:

1

ii. Limitation commenced before the excluded period and the balance

remaining is less than 90 days:

As an illustration, if limitation commenced on 17

th

April 2017, with a

projected expiry on 16

th

April 2020, then 31 days remained, which

would expire during the excluded period. Since the balance period is

less than 90 days, the balance period of 31 days would now be

extended upto 90 days once limitation resumes on 01

st

March 2022.

Ms. Bansal does not dispute this interpretation. Diagrammatic

representation of the same is provided below for easy reference:

2

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 19 of 23

iii. Limitation commenced during the COVID period:

As an illustration, if limitation commenced on 01

st

August 2020 and,

but for the exclusion, would have expired on 31

st

July 2023, only

part of the limitation period falls within the excluded period. In such

a case, the period which elapsed during the excluded period, i.e. one

year and six months, would be added to the total limitation period

and limitation would stand extended till 31

st

January 2025.

Diagrammatic representation of the same is provided below for easy

reference:

3

21. It is quite evident that 90 days’ special period directed by the

Supreme Court was intended for cases where limitation would get

exhausted within a month or so from commencement of the COVID period

and, therefore, to ensure that litigants had a reasonable period to resume

filing activity, after the end of the COVID period, a period of 90 days was

provided. This would mean that, where limitation would have expired

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 20 of 23

within 90 days from 15

th

March 2020, the litigant would still get a full

period of 90 days additionally after 01

st

March 2022. This would not mean

that, where a period of limitation exceeding 90 days got consumed during

the COVID period, only a fixed period of 90 days would become available.

For this purpose, the Supreme Court gave the clarification in the 2

nd

part of

third paragraph of the directive, stating that if a larger period was

available, the same would apply.

22. To elucidate this further, the 1

st

part of third paragraph of IV

th

directive states that “In cases where the limitation would have expired

during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the

actual balance period of limitation remaining all persons shall have a

limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022.”

23. This relates to cases where the actual balance period of limitation

remaining from 15th March 2020 was less than 90 days, and limitation

would have got exhausted during that period. The Supreme Court gave “all

persons a limitation period of 90 days from 01

st

March 2022”. The

significance of the expression “all persons” used by the Supreme Court

clearly relates to all persons falling within the category of cases where less

than 90 days of limitation remained after the end of the COVID period.

24. For the others, the 2

nd

part of the directive in third paragraph would

apply, which states that “In the event the actual balance period of limitation

remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer

period shall apply”.

25. The Supreme Court, very specifically, stated that if the actual

balance period remaining was greater than 90 days, the longer period

would apply.

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 21 of 23

26. The Supreme Court, therefore, provided a bifurcation between two

situations where limitation was getting exhausted during the COVID

period. For those who had a balance period of more than 90 days, the

longer period would apply, whereas for all those who did not fall within

that category, a fixed period of 90 days was provided.

Accepting Ms. Bansal’s argument would, in fact, mean that litigants would

have had to scramble to file a suit/petition within the 90-day period after

the end of the COVID period, i.e. after 28

th

February 2022, irrespective of

the fact that they may have lost a year or so of limitation during the COVID

period. This would, in the opinion of this Court, be an illogical and

irrational interpretation of the Supreme Court directives.

27. As categorically provided in the third paragraph itself of the IV

th

directive, where limitation had commenced during the COVID period and

the balance period of limitation remaining on 15

th

March 2020 was more

than 90 days, the entire balance period would be available from 1

st

March

2022. The intent behind the directions was to ensure that an aggrieved

person was given the benefit of the entire balance period available to

institute the proceedings and to give them sufficient time to file a

proceeding.

28. As regards the other contention raised by Ms. Bansal that if the

intention of the Supreme Court had been to extend the period of limitation

by the balance period remaining as on 15

th

March 2020 and to add the same

from 1

st

March 2022, the Supreme Court would have issued a specific

direction to that effect, as it did in the fourth paragraph of the IV

th

directive with respect to matters pertaining to Arbitration and Negotiable

Instruments. However, the fourth paragraph of the directive also makes it

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 22 of 23

abundantly clear that for Arbitration and Negotiable Instruments, the

COVID period, i.e. from 15

th

March 2020 to 28

th

February 2022, will ‘also’

stand excluded. Use of the phrase ‘also’ further embellishes the Supreme

Court’s intent that whole COVID period ought to be excluded from

limitation. Ergo, balance fall within the excluded period would necessarily

be added post completion of COVID period.

29. In the present case, the cause of action arose on 25

th

October 2018

and, accordingly, the actual period of limitation would end on 25

th

October

2021. The period which got exhausted during the COVID period was 19

months and 11 days. Applying the observation made hereinabove, the said

period, i.e. 19 months and 11 days, would be available from 01

st

March

2022 and would get exhausted on 11

th

October 2023. Suit was filed just

before, on 09

th

October 2023, and would, therefore, be within limitation.

Diagrammatic representation of the same is provided below for easy

reference:

4

30. Accordingly, the Court does not find the impugned order of the Trial

Court amiss and the petition stands dismissed.

C.R.P. 186/2026 Page 23 of 23

31. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

32. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/ak/bp