Madras High Court
M/S. Srk Cinemas vs R.Kothandaraman on 17 February, 2025
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
OSA (CAD) No.13 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
OSA (CAD) No.13 of 2025
&
C.M.P.No.1989 of 2025
1. M/s. SRK Cinemas
Rep. by Managing Partner and
Authorised Signatory R.Suresh
Plot No.2173, Door No.3
L Block, 6th Cross Street
12 th Main Road, Anna Nagar
Chennai 600 040.
2. R.Suresh
3. Kasthuri
4. Vijayalakshmi
5. S.Lakhsmi .. Appellants
Vs.
R.Kothandaraman .. Respondent
Prayer : Appeal under Section XIII of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
against the order dated 06.11.2024 made in A.No.3381 of 2024 in
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA (CAD) No.13 of 2025
C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.79 of 2024.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Mubarak Ahmed
For Ahmed Associates
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vasudevan
For Mr.A.Arokia Satheesh
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This appeal impugns a common order dated 06.11.2024 passed by a
learned Single Judge disposing two interim applications, namely A.No.3379
of 2024 and A.No.3381 of 2024. A.No.3379 of 2024 was for a relief with
which we are not immediately concerned. A.No.3381 of 2024 was to grant
leave to file additional written statement.
2. Between the parties, there are various disputes and the respondent
has filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs.5,92,92,000/-. The suit is filed and
registered as a commercial suit in the Commercial Division of this Court.
Within the time provided after receipt of suit summons, defendants, who
are appellants herein, filed their written statement on 29.04.2024. In the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
written statement, it is stated that a promissory note dated 05.05.2020 that
was relied upon by plaintiff in the plaint, was a concocted document
fabricating the signature of second defendant. It is also stated in the written
statement that defendants have contemplated steps for proving the forgery
of the signature of the second defendant in Document No.3, filed with the
plaint, through accredited handwriting experts.
3. On 30.04.2024, defendants applied to one Truth Labs, Chennai to
confirm the veracity and genuinity of the signature of second defendant in
the said promissory note dated 05.05.2020. After defendants received a
report dated 16.05.2024 from the said Truth Labs, A.No.3381 of 2024 was
filed on 20.06.2024 for leave to file additional written statement.
4. Counsel for respondent, i.e. plaintiff, in fairness, agreed that this
application dated 20.06.2024 was also within the 120 days prescribed
under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for filing written statement.
5. The learned Single Judge, however, closed the application because
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Court did not find merit in another application No.3379 of 2024, but,
no independent reasons were given. Appellants' counsel submitted that the
order in A.No.3381 of 2024 was without giving any reasons. On this, we
would agree with counsel. At the same time, counsel for respondent
submitted that this being a commercial suit, no intra court appeal would lie
against the order impugned.
6. At the same time, admittedly, without deciding this application to
file additional written statement, we were informed that the Court
proceeded to frame issues, record evidence and now, written arguments
were also submitted and the Court has to only deliver its judgment.
7. When we asked counsel for respondent as to how the Court could
have proceeded with the trial when defendants' application for additional
written statement filed within the outer limit of 120 days has been pending
and the issue of jurisdiction raised will require much time to be decided,
and that would mean the suit itself will have to be stayed, counsel for
respondent stated that keeping open respondent's rights and contentions in
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the suit and only for the purpose of early disposal of the suit, without
conceding to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may quash the
impugned order dated 06.11.2024 to the limited extent of it applying to
application No.3381 of 2024.
8. Accordingly, without going into the issue of jurisdiction and
without considering the merits of the matter and the rival contentions, we
quash and set aside the order impugned insofar as it relates to A.No.3381 of
2024 and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge to consider the
application. We express no opinion.
9. Counsel for appellants states that if the application is allowed,
then, he would apply to the Court for framing additional issues and for
leave to lead further evidence in the matter keeping open all the rights and
contentions of the plaintiff.
10. Counsel for appellants also stated that if plaintiff has to lead
additional evidence, he may also do so. Plaintiff's rights are not taken away
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in that regard.
11. Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the interim application also stands disposed.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.)
17.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
(kpl)
17.02.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
