Madras High Court
B.Dilip Kumar vs B.Magesh Kumar on 26 September, 2025
CRP.(PD)No.4128 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4128 of 2025
and CMP.No.21277 of 2025
B.Dilip Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
B.Magesh Kumar .... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee II
in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2022 dated 12.02.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Madhusudanan
For Respondent : Mr.Mahesh Kumar
for M/s.Rohini Ravikumar
ORDER
Unsuccessful defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. One
B.Magesh Kumar filed a Suit in O.S.No.47 of 2022 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, originally seeking for the relief of mandatory
injunction prohibiting the defendant, his agents or men claiming through him from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
carrying on any business with respect to theatre collection or distribution
including audio, digital satellite rights of the film 'Mugamariyan' jointly produced
by the plaintiff and the defendant under the Memorandum of Agreements dated
04.04.2019 and 01.05.2019 and to comply with the terms and conditions of the
Memorandum of Agreements.
2. The defendant has filed the written statement and at that stage, the
plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2024 under Order VI Rule XVII CPC
to amend the plaint and consequently renumber the prayer in sub paras set out in
schedule thereunder. Upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side, Court
below, vide order dated 12.02.202, has allowed the petition on the ground that the
plaintiff sought for the proposed amendment of prayer including the prayer for
recovery of money from the defendant. The contention of the defendant is that the
claim made for proposed amendment is barred by limitation and the prescription
of limitation involves mixed question of law and facts and it cannot be contested
at this stage. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and
allowed the petition. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred this
Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit
that the Court below ought to have seen that the main suit itself is not
maintainable in law and fact and against the principles of natural justice. The
Court below failed to consider that the plaintiff had not issued any notice before
initiating rent control proceedings against the defendant. The Court below ought
to have seen that the defendant accepted the demand draft and sent a legal notice
and the same was not brought by him to the knowledge of the proceedings
unintentionally. The plaintiff has not at all filed any document in support of his
claim in the petition filed for amendment and the claim of the plaintiff is also
barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
contention, relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12.12.2022
made in W.P.No.6971 of 2022.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff would
submit that the plaintiff entered into Memorandum of Business Agreements dated
04.04.2019 and 01.05.2019 with the defendant and as per the terms and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
conditions, he has jointly produced the Tamil film “Mugamariyan' and invested a
sum of Rs.60,00,000/- i.e., each investing Rs.30,00,000/-. They had also entered
into a Memorandum of Agreements dated 04.04.2019 and 01.05.2019 for the joint
investment of Rs.1.00 Crores in addition to the above said agreement. The
defendant failed to maintain the true status of the film and since the defendant
caused severe financial loss and mental agony, the plaintiff issued legal notices
dated 27.02.2020 and 09.12.2021 to the defendant and therefore, it is just and
necessary to include the prayer for recovery of money from the defendant. The
learned counsel for the respondent, in support of his contention, has relied upon
the following judgments:
(i) Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera [(1984) 3 SCC 352]
(ii) Person Publicity rep. By is Partner K.A.Ajmal Bhukari v. The
Corporation of Madras rep. By its Commissioner [2003 (1) CTC 219]
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
6. It is seen from the records that originally the Suit is filed seeking the
relief of mandatory injunction prohibiting the defendant, his agents or men
claiming through him from carrying on any business with respect to theatre
collection or distribution including audio, digital satellite rights of the film
'Mugamariyan' jointly produced by the plaintiff and the defendant under the
Memorandum of Agreements dated 04.04.2019 and 01.05.2019 and to comply
with the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Agreements. A perusal of
the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.3 of 2024 would disclose that after repeated
requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant had issued two cheques for
Rs.45,00,000/- and Rs.35,00,000/- respectively and when the petitioner presented
those cheques for encashment before the HDFC Bank on 04.02.2020, it was
returned with an endorsement “account closed”. It has also been stated that the
defendant has failed to mention the status of the film 'Mugamariyan', therefore,
the plaintiff came up with the petition for amendment of prayer including recovery
of money from the defendant.
7. Opposing the same, the defendant has filed the counter affidavit wherein
it has been stated that the defendant produced the film 'Mugamariyan' with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
budget of Rs.250 lakhs and when the defendant was in financial need, plaintiff
was introduced by the accountant one Dinesh by arranging loan of Rs.3 Crores.
The plaintiff and the said Dinesh committed various malpractices, maintained
improper accounts and took several blank cheques and signed documents kept in
the office of the defendant and also presented the cheques for encashment with the
bank. The relief claimed by the defendant by way of the proposed amendment is
barred by limitation and the petition is not maintainable. Before the Court below,
no document was marked and no witnesses were examined. The proposed
amendment sought for is with regard to including the prayer for recovery of
money from the defendant. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the
proposed amendment is affected by limitation.
8. It is seen from the records that the trial of the case is yet to commence. It
is seen from the plaint that the plaintiff had pleaded the issues with regard to the
transactions held between them and no new pleadings were introduced and the
proposed amendment sought is only to include the prayer for recovery of money.
It is well settled that limitation is the mixed question of facts and law and it cannot
be decided without conducting trial. The proposed amendment will not change
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
the nature of the suit. The issue of limitation can very well be raised by the
revision petitioner /defendant by way of filing additional written statement and
also by letting evidence to that effect during trial. In view of the reasons assigned
above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below
and this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
26.09.2025
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jvm
To
The Principal District Munsif Court,
Poonamallee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
