Defendants sought rejection of a partition plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation, relying on notices exchanged in 2008. The High Court held those notices were neither pleaded nor enclosed with the plaint, limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, and dismissed the revision, leaving the plea to be raised at trial.
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.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.3570 of 2025
1.Ramalingam
2.Kottoran
/Defendants 1 to 4
-vs-
1.Sundari
2.Kuruvammal ...Respondents 1 & 2/Respondents 1 & 2
/Plaintiffs 1 & 2
3.The Sub-Registrar Mudukulathur
4.The District Collector Ramanathapuram District ....Respondents 3 & 4/Respondents 3 & 4 /Defendants 5 & 6
(Respondents 3 & 4 may be dispensed with and notice need not be sent)
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 07.01.2025 made in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mudukulathur.
1/6
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R3 & R4
O R D E R
The defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Mudukulathur have filed the above civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C to reject the plaint.
2.The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the above said suit for the relief of partition and separate possession. When the suit is posted for evidence of plaintiffs, the defendants 1 to 4 have filed I.A.No.7 of 2024 to reject the plaint.
3.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, on 01.08.2008 the plaintiffs had issued a notice to the defendants seeking partition. The defendants have issued a reply notice 17.08.2008 disputing the rights of the plaintiffs to claim partition. The plaintiffs have kept quiet and have filed the present suit for partition only on 19.04.2021. Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. However, the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the said application on the ground that the issue
2/6
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025
whether a suit is barred by limitation or not cannot be decided in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also relied upon a judgment of this Court in S.A.No.1233 of 2013 ( Emperuman and others Vs. Rangarajan and others) dated 25.04.2016 wherein this Court has accepted the plea of limitation with regard to a suit for partition relying upon the averments in the plaint with regard to issuance of legal notice and reply notice. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petition.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records.
6.It is settled possession of law that for rejecting the plaint averments in the plaint and the document enclosed along with the plaint alone can be looked into. In the present case, the plaintiff has not pleaded anything about the issuance of notice dated 01.08.2008 or reply notice dated 17.08.2008. No such document has been enclosed along with the plaint. Only in the written statement, the defendants have pleaded that there was exchange of notice in the year 2008. In such circumstances, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
3/6
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025
7.The plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Unless the facts are specific to the effect that the suit is clearly barred by limitation, the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) cannot be invoked. In the present case, it has to be seen whether the plaintiffs have lost their right to claim partition in view of the ouster pleaded by the defendants. The plea of ouster has to be proved by the defendants, during trial. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners are at liberty to raise the plea during trial.
8.With the above said observations, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.03.2025
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No msa
4/6
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Mudukulathur.
3.The District Collector Ramanathapuram District
4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
msa
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.662 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.3570 of 2025
05.03.2025
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a plaint in a partition suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the plea that it is barred by limitation when the limitation plea arises from documents not pleaded or enclosed wit
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Emperuman and others Vs. Rangarajan and othersDistinguished¶6
S.A.No.1233 of 2013 (Emperuman and others Vs. Rangarajan and others) dated 25.04.2016
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramalingam
Kottoran
Gandhi
Bose
Sundari
Kuruvammal
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
