Dismissed

Sarojammal v. K.N.Venkatesan

Madras HC18 Mar 2019CRP/1651/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of an application to reject a plaint filed for permanent injunction. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was within limitation period as no specific time-bar existed in the sale agreement. The matter was remanded for trial within 8 months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs. Trial court directed to dispose of the suit within 8 months.

Sarojammal Vs K.N.Venkatesan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.03.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP PD No.1651 of 2012 and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
Sarojammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.N.Venkatesan ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 01.11.2011 passed in
I.A.No.731 of 2010 in O.S.No.506 of 2009 by the District Munsif Cum
Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.
For Revision Petitioner : M/s S.Uma Maheswarai
For Respondent : M/s A.Sumathy

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

This revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the trial court, dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure to reject the plaint.

¶9

The revision petitioner is the defendant in the original

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

suit and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. Pending suit, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.731 of 2010 to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as

¶14

well as the respondent and perused the materials on record.

¶15

The suit has been filed in the year 2007, on the basis of the sale agreement dated 12.04.1998. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the suit is barred by limitation, since the sale agreement period is lapsed on 12.04.2001. On perusal of a copy of the sale agreement dated 12.04.1998, it reveals that absolutely, there is no time limit fixed in the agreement. When time is not fixed in the agreement, as per the Article 54 of the Limitation Act, limitation stars from the date, when the vendor refused to execute such document. Legal notice was issued on 05.02.2007 to the defendant by the plaintiff to enforce sale agreement dated 12.04.1998 and the defendant by replying dated 15.02.2007, denied the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, from the date of reply dated 15.02.2007, the

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

suit has been filed within three years, i.e. well within the period limitation. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the suit is barred by limitation cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality on the orders passed by the trial court

¶19

the same does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶20

In the result, (i) The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petitions is closed. The orders passed by the trial court is confirmed.

¶21

(iii) The trial court is directed to disposed the suit within a period of 8 months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18.03.2019 Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking order/non-speaking order mst

¶22

¶23

The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

¶24

N.SATHISH KUMAR. J.,

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

mst

¶28

CRP PD No.1651 of 2012 and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
18.03.2019

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

Sarojammal v. K.N.Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojammal v. K.N.Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sriram Vs Sanjay Singhi

R. Srinivasan Vs v. Nagasubramanian

M/S Cheran Chit Funds Vs D. Sumathi

S.K.Syed Ali Vs Mohammed Haneef Rowther

M/S.Vaithilinga Asari (Died) Vs M/S.Sivapragas Chettiar (Died)

Jannathukani Vs Sheikh Mohammed Rep.by His