V. Ravikumar vs S. Kumar - 2025 Supreme(SC) 478

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 478

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
V. Ravikumar – Appellant
Versus
S. Kumar – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Meyyappan, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. G Umapathy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh-1, AOR Mr. Tushar Nair, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation was reversed by the High Court. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein who assails the decision of the learned Single Judge reckoning limitation from the cancellation of a power of attorney; which power of attorney itself was executed long back, pursuant to which sale deeds were also executed.

3. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction; declaration, that the various sale deeds entered into and executed on the strength of the power of attorney are null and void and injunction, to restrain the defendant permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The first defendant, the power holder filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 10, 11 and 150 of the C.P.C. (Civil Procedure Code) clearly alleging that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court mindful of the caution in considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, that normally such an application would not require an elaborate examination of the documents produced; which has to be done at the time of trial, all the same found that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document