Allowed¶33

A Senthilkumar v. Balaji Panchapagesan and another

Madras HC2 Jun 2026A/4133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A No. 4133 of 2025, Madras High Court Commercial Division, K. Kumaresh Babu J., 02-06-2026: unconditional leave to defend granted to 2nd defendant in Order XXXVII CPC summary money-recovery suit C.S.(Comm.Div) No.21 of 2025; first respondent's reliance on 2022 undertaking affidavit rejected as outside the plaint cause of action, plaint averments and document list under the Code; limitation objection (2013 transaction, 2015 agreement urged by counsel); prima facie case; application allowed, no costs; Limitation Act referred.

What did the court decide?

Unconditional leave granted to the applicant (2nd defendant) to defend C.S.(Comm.Div) No.21 of 2025; application allowed with no costs. ¶33

A Senthilkumar Vs Balaji Panchapagesan and another — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Unconditional leave granted to the applicant (2nd defendant) to defend C.S.(Comm.Div) No.21 of 2025; application allowed with no costs.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant/2nd defendant should be granted leave to defend the summary suit C.S.(Comm.Div) No.21 of 2025 filed by the first respondent under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of money. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

As the applicant had made out a prima facie case, the Court held that unconditional leave could be granted to him to defend the suit.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The alleged undertaking affidavit said to have been executed in 2022 did not form part of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint; there are no averments in the plaint regarding it and it does not form part of the list of documents required to be filed under the Code.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil application for leave to defend a summary suit - A No. 4133 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.21 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Commercial Division (K. Kumaresh Babu, J., decision dated 02-06-2026). The first respondent sued the applicant (arrayed as 2nd defendant) and the second respondent for recovery of money on an alleged agreement; the applicant sought leave to defend, urging (i) absence of cause of action against him and (ii) limitation - according to counsel, the transaction dated to 2013 and the agreement between the first and second respondents to 2015, the suit having been initiated under Order XXXVII CPC. The first respondent countered that an undertaking affidavit had been executed on 01.06.2022 by the applicant jointly with the second respondent, so the suit was not barred under the Limitation Act. The Court held that the alleged undertaking formed no part of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint, attracted no averment therein and was absent from the list of documents required to be filed under the Code; finding that the applicant had made out a prima facie case, it granted unconditional leave to defend. Application allowed; no costs.

¶1

A No. 4133 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

A No. 4133 of 2025 in C.S(COMM DIV).No.21 of 2025

¶7

A. Senthilkumar 1. Mr.Balaji Panchapagesan 2. Mr.M.Natarajan

..Applicant(s)

..Respondent(s)

To grant leave to defend the suit to the Applicant/2nd Defendant in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.21 of 2025.

¶12

For Applicant(s): Mr.A.Chidambaram For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muthukumar (For R1)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This application has been filed to grant leave to defend the suit to the

¶15

Applicant/2nd Defendant in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.21 of 2025.

¶16

Heard Mr.A.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the applicant and

¶17

Mr.R.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

A No. 4133 of 2025

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the first respondent herein had initiated the suit against him and the 2^nd respondent for recovery of money on an alleged agreement. He would submit that even a perusal of the cause of action would indicate that there has been no cause of action as against the applicant and that all the cause of action that had been indicated therein only relates to the transaction between the first and the 2^nd respondent alone. He would submit that the applicant had been unnecessarily added as a party defendant to the suit.

¶22

He would further submit that it is an admitted case that the transaction had taken place as early as in the year 2013 and that an agreement had been entered into between the first and the 2^nd respondent in the year 2015. Therefore, the present suit that had been instituted is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence, he would submit that it would become necessary for him to defend the suit, which had been initiated invoking the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court to grant leave to defend the suit.

¶23

Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that an undertaking affidavit had been executed on 01.06.2022 by the applicant along with the second respondent and therefore, the suit is not barred under the Limitation Act. He would further submit that having jointly executed undertaking affidavits for repayment of the loan amount, the

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

A No. 4133 of 2025

¶27

applicant cannot claim that he is not liable for repayment of the amount that had been advanced by the first respondent to the second respondent. Hence, he prays

¶28

this Court to dismiss the application and for decreeing the suit as prayed for.

¶29

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

Even though the first respondent claims that the applicant had executed an undertaking and the undertaking is said to have been executed in the year 2022, it did not form part of the cause of action that had been pleaded in the plaint. That apart, there is also no other averments in the plaint regarding the said undertaking nor such undertaking do not form part of the list of documents that is required to be filed under the Code.

¶31