High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order rejecting an application to strike out a plaint as barred by limitation and without cause of action, holding no error on the trial judge's part.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Liberty granted for additional written statement; Trial to be completed expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.2388 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No.2388 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.14947 of 2023
1.E.M.Bhuvaneswari 2.E.M.Vamsi Krishnan 3.Minor E.M.Kethan Krishnan rep. by his natural guaridan and mother Mrs.E.M.Bhuvaneswari
... Petitioners
-Vs-
N.Rajendran ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Additional City Civil Judge-II, Chennai in I.A. No.3 of 2021 in O.S. No.3513 of 2021 dated 19.12.2022 and reject the plaint in O.S.
No.3513 of 2021 as barred by limitation and has no cause of action.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.B.S.Jothiraman
C.R.P.No.2388 of 2023
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No.3 of 2021 in O.S. No.3513 of 2021 passed by the learned II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioners/defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
C.R.P.No.2388 of 2023
trial court stating that the cause of action was clearly established that two suits filed within the limitation period. Since because the said Munirathinam is the original borrower executed an undertaking on 14.12.2017 agreed to repay the amount on three debts and also gave a cheque. When it was submitted for collection in the bank, the same was dishonoured, thereby, the cause of action arose for filing a suit. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application. Considering both side submissions, the trial judge held that as per the plaint averments, deceased Munirathinam borrowed money from the plaintiff, for which, he has issued a cheque and thereafter, an undertaking was also said to be effected. All these facts have to be proved by evidence and so, without proper pleadings, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation, thereby it was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the Revision Petitioners/defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
C.R.P.No.2388 of 2023
needs evidence, as such is liable to be set aside. Hence, they prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.
01.12.2023
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No rpp To The II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
4/5
C.R.P.No.2388 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.R.P.No.2388 of 2023
01.12.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on limitation and lack of cause of action.
Whether an undertaking obtained by the deceased before the police has no evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
1.E.M.Bhuvaneswari 2.E.M.Vamsi Krishnan 3.Minor E.M.Kethan Krishnan rep. by his natural guaridan and mother Mrs.E.M.Bhuvaneswari
N.Rajendran
T.V.THAMILSELVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
