K.Kumar v. Uma Rani
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to reject a plaint on limitation grounds. The Court held the suit was hopelessly barred by law and rejected the plaint, setting aside the lower court's order.
What did the court decide?
The challenged order refusing to reject the plaint was set aside, and the plaint was held to be barred by limitation and liable to be rejected.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(PD)No.616 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 14.08.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
C.R.P.(PD).No.616 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3228 of 2020
K.Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Uma Rani
2.Parasuraman
3.Menaka
4.Jayalakshmi
5.Arumugam ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India To set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.12.2019 made in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.358 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Somasundar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari
1/20
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint disclosing facts of a suit barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Whether contradictory averments in the plaint can be read as a whole to determine if the cause of action arose within the statute of limitations.
Whether the acquisition of the certified copy of the sale deed in 2015 and understanding thereof in 2018 constitutes a sufficient cause of action for a suit filed in 2018.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K. Kumar
- respondent
Uma Rani
- respondent
Parasuraman
- respondent
Menaka
- respondent
Jayalakshmi
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court