Madras High Court
Sudeeshan vs Natarajan on 24 June, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
Sudeeshan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Natarajan
2. Dhandapani ... Respondents
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
28.08.2018 passed in unnumbered O.S. on the file of the Sub Court,
Tirupattur at Vellore and allow the above CRP.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the order
dated 28.08.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur,
Vellore in unnumbered O.S., thereby rejecting the plaint on the ground of
limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the
defendants. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of money on the strength
of pronote which was executed by the respondents herein on 20.06.2015.
While being so, on 19.04.2017 the respondents issued notice, thereby called
upon the petitioner herein not to threaten and compel the respondents to pay
the loan amount. On receipt of the same, the petitioner sent a reply notice
dated 25.04.2017 thereby called upon the respondents to pay the amount
which was borrowed by them through pronote dated 20.06.2015 within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed suit on 09.07.2018. The Court below rejected the plaint for
the reason that the suit itself barred by limitation under Article 19 and 36 of
the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision
Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the pronote dated 20.06.2015 never fixed any last date for payment of
the money, which was borrowed by the respondents. The limitation starts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
only from the date of demand, to file suit within a period of three years. The
petitioner issued notice dated 25.04.2017 and called upon the respondents
to pay the amount which was borrowed by them on the pronote dated
20.06.2015, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the
notice. Therefore, the petitioner filed suit well within the time and the trial
Court ought not to have rejected the plaint in-limini. He further submitted
that the Court below had wrongly taken the suit under Article 19 and 36 of
the Limitation Act and rejected the plaint as it is barred by limitation. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 (5)
LW 250 in the case of M.Chinnaiyah Vs. Naina Mohammed and another,
and prayed to allow this petition.
4. Heard Mr.R.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Though notices served, no one is appeared on behalf of the
respondents.
5. On perusal of the document filed along with the plaint revealed
that the respondents executed pronote on 20.06.2015 and borrowed a sum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
of Rs.3,00,000/- loan for their business purpose and also for their family
expenses. In the said pronote, there is categorical condition that whenever
the demand made by the petitioner, the amount should be repaid along with
interest. The respondents issued notice on 19.04.2017, thereby admitting the
action of the petitioner herein with regard to payment of money. On receipt
of the same, the petitioner by way of reply notice dated 25.04.2017 called
upon the respondents to pay the amount which was borrowed on
20.06.2015, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the
notice. Therefore, the petitioner demanded the repayment of the loan only
on 25.04.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed suit on 09.07.2018 on the
strength of the pronote executed by the respondents.
6. The trial Court wrongly understood that the suit was filed on
the pronote executed by the respondents dated 20.06.2015 and concluded
that the suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years from the
execution of the pronote, without seeing the condition on the pronote. The
Court below also wrongly applied the Article 19 and 36 of the Limitation
Act and rejected the plaint as it is barred by limitation. The Article 19 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
Limitation Act says about the recovery of the money and the Article 36 says
on the promissory note when default is made as per the condition.
7. In the case on hand, as stated supra there is a specific condition
in the pronote that whenever the petitioner demands about the repayment of
the loan amount, the respondents have to be paid the same. Therefore, both
the Article 19 and 36 of the Limitation Act cannot be applicable to the case
on hand. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is perverse and liable
to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore in unnumbered O.S., is hereby set
aside. The petitioner is directed to represent the plaint within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On receipt of the
same, the trial Court viz., the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore
is directed to number the suit, if it is otherwise in order and try the suit on
merits and in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
9. With the above directions, this Civil Revision petition is
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
24.06.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Tirupattur, Vellore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3159 of 2018
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
