Dismissed

Palaniammal v. Karuppaiah

Madras HC22 Feb 2018CRP/114/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the single-judge bench held that the question of limitation depends on proving the nature of the document, making it a triable issue for after evidence. The court directed the lower court to frame the preliminary issue while dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; direction to Lower Court to frame the preliminary issue of limitation before requiring subsequent evidence.

Palaniammal Vs Karuppaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 114 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No. 576 of 2018
Palaniammal .. Petitioner
Vs
Karuppaiah .. Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and final Order dated 09.11.2017 made in I.A. No. 862 of 2015 in O.S. No. 87 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and pass such further orders.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S. Karthik Raja

¶9

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The revision petition arises against the Fair and final Order

¶12

dated 09.11.2017 made in I.A. No. 862 of 2015 in O.S. No. 87 of 2004 on

¶13

the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

The respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 87 of 2004 for recovery of money against the petitioner and other defendants. In the aforesaid suit, an application in I.A. No. 862 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner, to decide the preliminary issue, whether the document relied

¶17

by the respondent is the loan document or mortgage deed.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid document is only a loan document and therefore the suit is certainly barred by limitation. The trial court has dismissed the said application, observing that the issue could be decided only at the time of trial in the suit. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶19

Considered the facts of the case and the submissions of

¶20

the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

This Court is of the view that the said issue raised by the petitioner is a trial able issue. Therefore, the question as to whether the

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

suit is barred by limitation under the document relied by the respondent/ plaintiff, has to be decided after letting in evidence by both the parties. However, the court below is directed to frame issues, if not already framed along with the present issue raised by the petitioner, in

¶25

the instant application.

¶26

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, with the above
direction. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
22.02.2018
Index : Yes/ No
Speaking order/ Non speaking order
avr
To
The Subordinate Court
Namakkal.

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

¶29

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶30

avr

¶31

CRP (PD) No. 114 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No. 576 of 2018
22.02.2018

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

Palaniammal v. Karuppaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniammal v. Karuppaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praesh K.Mehta Vs G.Azariah

The Executive Engineer Vs Kamalam(Died)

Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. Vs M/S.Janani Minerals (P) Ltd.

Kannan Vs Raja

Arachelvam Vs Sundarsingh

Sri.Shanmugasundharam Vs Smt.Mohana