The plaint cannot be partially rejected; it must either proceed as a whole or be rejected entirely, with limitation issues addressed during trial.

COMMON ORDER

These two reviion petitions have been filed by the 1^st and 4^th defendants in C.O.S.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil challenging the dismissal of I.A.Nos.1 and 3 of 2023 by the trial Court.

(A)Facts leading to the filing of these revision petitions are as follows:

2.The first respondent herein as plaintiff had filed the above said suit for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.39,22,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that the fourth defendant company is a sister concern of the first defendant company. The first defendant company had directed the fourth defendant to issue a letter of intent to the second defendant company for the purposes of installation of mechanical and piping works for six spinning lines at Malaysia. The second defendant which is the sister concern of the third defendant and the first defendant have jointly formed the fourth defendant company for mobilisation of man power and technical staff from India to Malaysia for erection and commissioning of six spinning lines at a lesser cost.

3.It is the further contention of the plaintiff that he received an offer letter from the third defendant company on 16.07.2011 for a period of one year as Branch Manager to be stationed at Malaysia. He was promised to pay a monthly salary of Malaysian Ringgit 20000/RM per month during the contract period of one year. Though he received first month salary in December 2011, thereafter the salary was not paid from January 2012 to July 2012. Before leaving India, the third defendant had promised that the plaintiff's dues would be credited to his bank account in India.

4.After reaching India, there was no response from the defendants despite several e-mails and phone calls and request letters. Finally the plaintiff had approached Indian embassy at Malaysia by way of his request dated 04.07.2024. Since there was no response, the plaintiff had filed WP(MD).No.22399 of 2015 (P.Ravindran Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (Emigration Division) and others) on 11.12.2015. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.11.2022 granting liberty to the plaintiff to pursue his remedy before the proper forum. The plaintiff had further contended that he had approached the District Legal Services Authority Kanyakumari at Nagercoil on 31.03.2023. The defendants 1 and 3 did not enter appearance and the defendants 1 and 4 after entering appearance stated in writing, that they are not inclined to take part in mediation. Therefore, the present suit was filed seeking recovery of money from the defendants.

5.Pending suit, the first defendant had filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the fourth defendant had filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the plaint on the following grounds:

a)The claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary is for the period between January 2012 to July 2012. Whereas the suit has been filed only on 17.04.2023 which is clearly barred by limitation. The writ petition before the High Court was also filed only after the period of limitation has got expired. Therefore, filing or disposal of the writ petition on 10.11.2022 cannot be cited as a ground for extension of period of limitation.

b)The alleged cause of action for the plaintiff has arisen only in Malaysia. No apart of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdictional limits of the Principal District Court, Kanyakumari.

c)The letter of offer was given to the plaintiff only by the third defendant. There is no employer employee relationship between the first and fourth defendant on one side and the plaintif