Madras High Court
CRP/6300/2026 of R.L. Senthil Raja Kumar Vs R. Anandapadmanaban on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6300 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012157232026}
R.L.Senthil Raja Kumar
S/o. R.Lakshmanakumar,
Residing at Flat S 3,
Jaison Homes,
113 V.G.P.Selva Nagar,
3rd Main Road, Velachery,
Chennai 600 042.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. R.Anandapadmanaban
S/o. Raghavachari,
No.70, Kalakshetra Road,
Ward 155, Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai 600 041.
2. V.Saranathan
S/o. R.Venkatesan,
Tansi Nagar, 8th Street,
Velachery 600 042.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 25.6.2026 passed in O.S.SR.No.5271 of 2026 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and consequently direct the Trial Court to number the unnumbered O.S.SR.No.5271 of 2026, treat the plaint as maintainable and within the period of limitation, take the same on file in accordance with law.
For Petitioner:
Ms.G.Baby Shalini for
Mr.C.Deepak Kumar
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 25.6.2026 in O.S.SR.No.5271 of 2026 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (for short, the Court below) rejecting the plaint on the ground that the said suit was barred by limitation.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of recovery of money with a cause of action that the petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents/defendants and paid an advance amount, that since the respondents/defendants were not coming forward to execute the sale deed, the petitioner sought for refund of the advance amount and that since the advance amount was not refunded, the said suit was filed before the Court below for recovering the advance amount together with interest.
5. But, even at the SR stage, the Court below rejected the plaint on the ground that the said suit has not been filed within the period of limitation. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by bringing to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Videocon Properties Ltd. Vs. Dr.Balachandra Laboratories & Others [reported in 2004 (3) SCC 711], submits that the refund of the advance amount sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff can be brought within the scope of Section 56(6)
(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, that it creates a charge over the subject property, that consequently, the limitation for filing the suit is traceable to Article 62 of the Limitation Act, that the limitation provided under Article 62 of the Limitation Act is 12 years and that therefore, the said suit has been filed within the limitation period.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold without even numbering the same. The Court below ought to have taken into consideration the ground raised by the petitioner/plaintiff and the fact that the facts of the present case involve a mixed question of fact and law in so far as limitation is concerned. This is apart from the legal issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.6.2026 in O.S.SR.No.5271 of 2026 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside. There shall be a direction to the Court below to number the said suit and proceed further in accordance with law. 06-10-2026 To The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6300 of 2026 06-10-2026