ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

02.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, in

I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No.277 of 2019.

2. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioer/defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.07 of 2022 praying to dicide the issue with respect to limitation 'Whether the relief prayed for in the suit is barred by limitation? as preliminary issue before considering the other issues on merits in the above suit. Originally, the plaintiffs filed a leave petition to sue as paupers in I.O.P.No.53 of 2006 on 30.11.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2008 in the said I.O.P. Stating that the respondents/plaintiffs are having the sufficient means to pay the Court fees and consquently,the trial Court has directed the respondents to pay the sufficient Court fees on or before 02.03.2011. Thereafter, the respondents has not remit the Court fee within above mentioned time, I.O.P.No.53 of 2006 was dismissed for default. Subseqeuntly, the respondenta filed an applications in I.A.No.41 and 42 of 2011 before the trial Court to take the

IOP and condonation of delay in paying the Court fees and the same were dismissed. Challening the said findings, the plaintiffs have preferred the Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP.(PD).No.1593 & 1594 of 2013 which was allowed by this Court and consequently, a court fee was duly paid by the respondents and thereupon, the suit was taken by the trial Court in O.S.No.277 of 2019. Now, the suit is ripe for trial, the defendant filed an written statement while issuing with regard to limitation aspect as prelimiary issue before considering the other issues. The said application in I.A.No.7 of 2022 is strongly objected by the plaintiff. On hearing both sies, the trial Judge had dismissed the said application, holding that the reasons assigned by the petitioner/defendant is not property.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submitted that IOP.No.53 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiffs is not in good faith and Section 13 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff has not yet permitted to proceed with the case because the suit is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the revision petitioner has enclosed the time schedule and the respondent are not entitiled to any exclusion of time under Section 13 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, he want to decide the issue with respct to limitation as prelimiary issue.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff submitted that the suit is for trial, at that time, the revision petitioner/defendant filed an application before the trial Court as such is not maintainable. She further submitted that limitation aspect also dicided as one of the issues and not as a preliminary issue. Hence, the trial Court rightly appreciated the facts and dismissed the said application.

5. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that IOP was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and the same was dismissed since because, the plaintiffs are having suffficient means to pay the Court fees and also they approched the trial Court is not in good faith. Moreover, they had sufficient means as they sold their properties to 3rd parties for valid consideration. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court can decide the issue with respect of limiation as preliminary issue before considering the other issues. Therefore, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, in I.A.No.07 of 2022

dated 02.11.2022 is hereby set aside.

6. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

14.12.2023

Speaking / Non Speaking order

Neutral Citation : Yes/No

Index :Yes/No msrm

To

1. The Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Section Officer,

VR Section,

High Court of Madras.

T.V.THA