Madras High Court
M/S.Peevees Exim Company Private Ltd vs / on 19 June, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
C.S.No.290 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No.290 of 2004
M/s.Peevees Exim Company Private Ltd.,
Peevees Building
Nilambur – 679 329
Malappuram District
Kerala .. Plaintiff
/versus/
1.B.S.Krishnan
2.B.S.Shanmugam
3.B.S.Chandrasekar
4.M/s.L.S.P.Agro Limited
Registered Office
No.36, St.Mary's Road,
R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028.
.. Defendants
This Civil Suit is filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 1 of CPC
read with Order VII Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, prayed for a
judgment and decree against the Defendants:-
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:36 pm )
C.S.No.290 of 2004
a).Directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay a sum of
Rs.3,94,72,726/- as guarantors of the 4th defendant in respect of RBD
Palmolein sole and supplied to the 4th defendant.
b).For Costs of this suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Venkatavaradan
For D1 & D4 : Ms.P.G.Aiswariya
For D2 & D3 : set ex parte
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a following memo
dated 24.09.2024:
“The plaintiff submits as recovery of moneys from
the defendants in the event of a decree being passed in its
favour will be difficult, the plaintiff is filing the instant
Memo to seek for permission of this Hon'ble Court to
withdraw the above suit.”
2.The 1st and 4th defendants had filed a reply to the memo and
let me extract below that also in entirety:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:36 pm )
“1.The plaintiff has filed a memo dated
24.09.2024 seeking permission of this Hon'ble Court to
withdraw the above stated suit, C.S.No.290 of 2004, on the
ground that recovering money from the defendants herein
will be difficult for the plaintiff in the event of a decree
being passed.
2.The plaintiff in its above stated memo has
thoroughly suppressed the fact that towards satisfaction of
the ex-parte decree dated 28.05.2005 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in the present suit, the plaintiff got the properties of
the 1st defendant conveyed in its favour by fraud, force and
threat (more fully described in the schedule mentioned in
A.Nos.1277 & 1288 of 2020 in C.S.No.290 of 2004). The
afore said ex-parte decree was itself was subsequently set-
aside by an order dated 12.03.2018 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in A.No.841 of 2018 in C.S.No.290 of 2004.
3.In view of the above stated order dated
12.03.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court setting aside the
said ex-parte decree, a valuable right has accrued to the 1 st
and 4th defendants for seeking restitution of the above-
mentioned properties and contesting the suit by disproving
the false and unjust claims made by the plaintiff. These
defendants indeed had filed A.Nos.1277 of 2020 (along with
the other connected applications) in C.S.No.290 of 2004
seeking restitution of the said properties amongst other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:36 pm )
reliefs. This Hon'ble Court by its common order dated
03.02.2021 dismissed the above stated applications, against
which the 1st and 4th defendants have preferred
O.S.A.No.207, 208 and 210 of 2025, as well as a CMP for
stay of the present suit. The same is likely to be listed soon.
4.The plaintiff without satisfying the conditions
mentioned under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908, now at the time of trial, in order to defeat
right of these defendants to proceed with the suit, is
attempting to withdraw the same. The plaintiff by seeking to
withdraw the present suit is in effect trying to efface without
any trace its act of unjustly retaining properties that are
liable to be restored to the 1st defendant. In the event of this
Hon'ble Court entertaining the memo dated 24.09.2024 and
granting the relief as prayed for, the 1st and 4th defendants
will be left remediless before the Hon'ble Court. More so,
any amount of cost that may be ordered by this Hon'be
Court would not compensate these defendants, as their very
right to have access to this Hon'ble Court for seeking justice
would be permanently denied.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
record the above stated objection / reply to the Memo dated
24.09.2004, pass appropriate order(s) and thus render
justice.”
3.The learned counsel for the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:36 pm )
as the dominus litis had instituted the suit and in view of the reasons
stated in the memo, the plaintiff is seeking permission to withdraw the
suit. There is no condition attached. There is no condition sought. There
is no liberty sought to proceed further against the defendants. It is a
withdrawal simpliciter.
4.The learned counsel for the defendants claimed that the
plaintiff had derived advantage from the pendency of the suit and that the
defendants had filed A.No.1277 of 2020 seeking restitution of properties
which the plaintiff had the benefit of obtaining. But that issue cannot be
intermingled when the plaintiff seeks to withdraw the suit. Leave is
granted to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. The learned counsel for the
plaintiff also made the following endorsement:
“Withdrawn on 19.06.2025.”
5.In view of the above, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No
costs.
19.06.2025
smv
Neutral citation : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:36 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
19.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:36 pm )
