Dismissed¶30

Mohamed Asif v. Ramakrishnan

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, Constitution of India – rejection of plaint

Madras HC2 Jan 2026CRP/6586/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRP No. 6586 of 2025 (S. Sounthar J., 02-01-2026): rejection of plaint refused where limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; at the plaint-rejection stage only plaint averments and plaint documents count, defendants' documents cannot be used; bare-injunction suit on 2012 sale agreement treated as within limitation per plaint averments of first breach in August 2024; Article 227 revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

While considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the court is guided by the averments contained in the plaint and the plaint documents. ¶26

Mohamed Asif Vs Ramakrishnan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit for bare injunction founded on the 2012 sale agreement is barred by limitation, so that the plaint ought to be rejected. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

While considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the court is guided by the averments contained in the plaint and the plaint documents.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

As per the plaint averments, the plaintiffs learnt only in the first week of August 2024 of the defendants' attempt to alienate the agreement properties, so the first breach was committed only during August 2024.

¶29

Key takeaways

With the first breach falling in August 2024, the suit was filed immediately and well within the period of limitation, so the plaint cannot be rejected as time-barred at the threshold.ratio¶30
At the stage of a petition to reject the plaint the court cannot rely on the defendants' documents to conclude on a plea raised by the defendant; accordingly the trial court was justified in dismissing the plaint-rejection application on the ground of limitation.ratio¶30
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, Constitution of India - rejection of plaint - limitation. Defendants in OS.No.159 of 2024 (suit by first respondent for bare injunction against alienation, founded on a sale agreement allegedly dated 20.09.2012) moved IA.No.5 of 2024 to reject the plaint as time-barred; the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu dismissed the application (order dated 28-08-2025). S.Sounthar J. held that while considering rejection of a plaint the court is guided only by the plaint averments and plaint documents; per the plaint, the plaintiffs learnt of the defendants' attempt to alienate the agreement properties only in the first week of August 2024 (first breach), and the suit was filed immediately, well within limitation. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and defendants' documents cannot be relied upon at the threshold, though the defendants remain free to prove time-bar at trial. Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected CMP closed; no costs.

¶1

CRP No. 6586 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 6586 of 2025 and CMP.No.32614 of 2025

¶7

Mohamed Asif

¶8

Mohamed Saleem

¶9

Mohamed Aleem

¶10

Petitioners

¶11

¶12

Ramakrishnan

¶13

2.The Sub Registrar SRO Tiruporur, Chengalpet 603 105.

¶14

Mohamed Ibrahim (died).

¶15

Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order made in IA.No.5 of 2024 in OS.No.159 of 2024 dated 28-08-2025 by learned Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Murali Krishnan for Mr.S.Kalaiselvan

¶18

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

¶19

CRP No. 6586 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the

¶22

trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/ defendants seeking rejection of the plaint.

¶23

The first respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property to third parties on the strength of sale agreement allegedly entered into by him with the petitioners on 20.09. 2012. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners by claiming that the suit sale agreement was a forged document. They have also raised a plea of limitation.

¶24

Later, the petitioners filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint by reiterating the averments contained in the written statement. The main point urged by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint was limitation.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though agreement was of the year 2012, the suit was filed only in the year 2024 and hence, the suit agreement is barred by limitation and the suit for bare injunction cannot be maintained based on time barred agreement.

¶26

It is settled law while considering the application for rejection of the plaint, the court is guided by averments contained in the plaint and the plaint documents. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiffs have been all along ready and willing to perform part of the contract from the inception. It is further stated

¶27

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

¶28

CRP No. 6586 of 2025

¶29

that the plaintiffs acquired knowledge about the attempt made by the defendants to alienate the agreement mentioned properties to third parties during the first week of August 2024 and hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit seeking injunction against alienation. Therefore, as per the plaint averments, the first breach is said to have been committed only during August 2024 and the suit

¶30

has been filed immediately well within the period of limitation. Of course, during the course of trial, the petitioners/defendants may lead evidence and establish that the agreement was time barred. At the stage of petition to reject the plaint, the court cannot rely on the documents of the defendants and come to the conclusion with regard to the plea raised by defendant. Therefore, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. In view of the same, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶31

02-01-2026

¶32

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No nr

¶33

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

¶34

CRP No. 6586 of 2025

¶35

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

¶36

CRP No. 6586 of 2025