High Court · 2025

CRP No.2812 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :27.06.2025 CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJIC.R.P.No.2812 of 2024 and CMP No.14965 of 2024Vela Ramamurthy .... Petitioner vs 1.M.Rathnakumar2.M/s Vasan Publications Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, 757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.3. The Discovery Book Palace Pvt.,Ltd., Represented by its Director, 6, Mahavir Complex, Munusamy Salai, K.K.Nagar West, Chennai-78.4. Mrs.Sandhya Natarajan Proprietor M/s Sandhya Pathipakkam, 52 (Old 7) 1st Floor, 4th Street, Anjugam Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-835.Bala1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2812 of 20246. The South Indian Film Writer's Association Estd.1973 (A trade Union Registered Under Trade Unions Act 1926) Represented by its Secretary, L.33, Flat, 2nd Floor, Bharathidhasan Colony, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-78. ... Respondent s Revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.9 of 2023 in O.S.No.3962 of 2019.For Petitioner: Mr.S.Santhosh KumarFor Respondents: Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel For Ms.V.Srimathi For R.1 Mr.T.V.Suresh Kumar For M/s Gemicon Legal For R.3 ORDER The revision is at the instance of the defendant, who was unsuccessful in the application in I.A.No.9 of 2023 in O.S.No.3962 of 2029 being rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.2. Heard Mr.S.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, whose arguments are adopted and supported by 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2812 of 2024Mr.T.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent and Mr.T.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent/plaintiff.3. The suit has been filed before this Court originally in C.S.No.468 of 2016 for the following reliefs:“ a) To grant damages to the tune of Rs.30,00,000.00 from defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally.b) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5, their men, agents, servants and subordinates from exploiting the story of the plaintiff titled “Kuttraparambarai” and registered with the 6th defendant, under this name or any other name, through visual, electronic or print media,c) to Award costs of the proceedings,d) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper and render justice”4. When the suit was in a part-heard stage and the defendant was in the witness box, the defendant has taken out two applications, one - for receipt of additional documents and two - for rejecting the plaint. The crux of the application for rejection of the plaint is that the suit is barred by limitation. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2812 of 2024However, the application was resisted by the first respondent/plaintiff and the trial Court finding that the said suit was in a part-heard stage, nearing conclusion and that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of facts and law, proceeded to dismiss the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant invites my attention to certain paragraphs in the plaint and states that the plaintiff has conveniently not given the relevant dates as to when the said incident has occurred and in certain other paragraphs where the plaintiff himself admits that the story which was adopted by the petitioner under a different name had nothing to do with "Kutraparambarai" which is the subject matter of the suit. He would therefore submit that by clever drafting, the plaintiff has attempted to bring the suit within the period of limitation and he would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Remisetty Venkatanna and Another vs Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 521. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent would therefore pray for the Civil revision Petition being allowed.6. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2812 of 2024the first respondent/plaintiff would state that the defendant has allowed the trial to commence and in fact, as pointed out by the trial Court, even while taking out the application for rejection of the plaint, the defendant has also taken out an application for receipt of additional documents, therefore, the intention of the revision petitioner/defendant cannot be said to be as one to reject the plaint. He would also state that the plaintiff has not only sought for the relief of damages, but also for permanent injunction. The specific allegation in the plaint is also that the Book was published through the second defendant in March 2015 and the suit has been admittedly filed in the year 2016.7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the third respondent and Senior Counsel appearing for the first defendant/plaintiff.8. In an application for rejection of plaint, the only consideration would be the plaint averments and allegations and documents that were filed in support of the plaint. If a case is made out, from a reading of the plaint, that it attracts any of the limbs of Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code alone, then the plaint can be rejected. No extraneous material, including the defence set up in the written statement can form the basis of an order rejecting the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2812 of 2024plaint.9. On going through the plaint averments, firstly I find that the suit is not just for damages, but also for the relief of permanent injunction which is already extracted above. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the book of "Kutraparambarai" was published only in the year 2015. The veracity of the statement can be tested only after the parties lead evidence, oral and documentary and I do not find that the averments in the plaint on the face of it, warranting rejection of the plaint. Therefore, The trial court has also rightly held that the question of limitation will have to be tested only at trial since it is a mixed question of fact and law. However, with regard to the finding of the trial court that the application has been filed belatedly i.e., the suit was in a part-heard stage and finding that this was one of the reasons for rejecting the application cannot be sustained since law is settled that an application to reject the plaint can be taken out at any stage of the suit. Even otherwise, in view of the earlier finding that the suit is also for permanent injunction, for which, the plaintiff has made specific averments and allegations in the plaint and the question of limitation also is one which cannot be decided on the face of it, that too, in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, I do not see any merit in this revision.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2812 of 202410. Therefore, I am inclined to confirm the order passed by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.9 of 2023 in O.S.No.3962 of 2019. 11. After pronouncing the order, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent seeks a direction to the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.3962 of 2019. 12. The suit has been filed before this Court originally in the year 2016 and therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.3962 of 2019 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.27.06.2025Index: Yes/NoWebsite:yes/noSpeaking Order/Non-speaking Ordersr7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2812 of 2024P.B.BALAJI.,J.srToThe XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, ChennaiC.R.P.No.2812 of 2024 27.06.20258/8