M. Sarathy v. Mugundan
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 226 against the order rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and must be decided at trial.
What did the court decide?
The Civil Revision Petition failed and was dismissed; the trial court was directed to frame issues on limitation and dispose of the suit expeditiously.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP.PD.No.3883 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.18154 of 2017
1. M.Sarathy
2. D.Megala
..Petitioners
Vs.
Mugundan ..Respondent
PRAYER :
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order made in I.A.No.8175 of 2016 in O.S.No.4720 of 2015 on the file of the learned
VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 21.08.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.G.Balachandran
ORDER
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on grounds of limitation and lack of declaratory prayer is maintainable at the nil admirabilis stage.
Whether limitation being a mixed question of fact and law can be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. Sarathy
- petitioner
D. Megala
- respondent
Mugundan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court