Dismissed¶167

Mr. Jawahar and 2 others v. R. Venugopal and 7 others

Madras HC13 Nov 2025A/5154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; Section 151 CPC; no cause of action; limitation as mixed question of law and fact; plaint cannot be rejected in part; preliminary issue on limitation; Family Arrangement-cum-Undertaking dated 26.03.2017; mandatory injunction for production of original document; WhatsApp circulation of document copy; claim of Rs.2,09,20,000/- with 12% interest; Madras High Court Original Side; Dahiben distinguished; P. Kumarakurubaran followed; Chhotanben followed; N. Mohan followed; Kum. Geetha followed.

What did the court decide?

The Plaint discloses a cause of action; whether that cause of action is true or not can be decided only through trial and not at this stage, and the applicants' contention that the Suit has no cause of action is unsustainable. ¶102

Mr. Jawahar and 2 others Vs R. Venugopal and 7 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶167

Issue for consideration

Whether the Plaint in C.S. No.203 of 2025 discloses a cause of action, particularly for prayer (a) for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to produce the original Family Arrangement-cum-Undertaking dated 26.03.2017, and is therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. +1 more

¶87

Court's answer

¶102

Ratio / Principle

Though the Family Arrangement is dated 26.03.2017, the Plaintiffs demanded the original only in the year 2024 and the 9th defendant circulated a copy through WhatsApp; therefore there is a cause of action for the relief of mandatory injunction.

¶96

Key takeaways

The question of limitation is mingled with questions of fact and law and cannot be decided at the threshold; it has to be decided through trial, and even if the Suit is barred by limitation it is for the defendants to plead it in the written statement, whereupon the Court can frame a preliminary issue as to maintainability.ratio¶140
Following P. Kumarakurubaran, a Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as time-barred where the issue of limitation involves a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence; in this case the limitation question needs elaborate trial.ratio¶157

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Dhanabal, J.) dismissed A. No.5154 of 2025 in C.S. No.203 of 2025, an application by defendants 1, 6 and 9 under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) and Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by respondents 1 and 2 for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to produce the original 'Family Arrangement-cum-Undertaking' dated 26.03.2017 and directing defendants 1 and 6 to pay Rs.2,09,20,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Held: (i) the Plaint discloses a cause of action - though the Family Arrangement is dated 26.03.2017, the Plaintiffs demanded the original only in 2024 and the 9th defendant circulated a copy through WhatsApp; whether the cause of action is true is a matter of trial; (ii) the plea that the monetary claim is barred by limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, incapable of decision at the threshold, to be urged in the written statement with liberty to frame a preliminary issue; (iii) a Plaint cannot be rejected in part; (iv) the Supreme Court authorities cited by the applicants (Dahiben, Azhar Hussain, Liverpool & London, ITC, Madanuri, Khatri Hotels) are not applicable to the present facts, while the respondents' authorities (P. Kumarakurubaran, Chhotanben, N. Mohan, Kum. Geetha) were followed. Application dismissed.