Limitation for claims can only be determined during trial, ensuring amendment to include recovery of funds is permissible.

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 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.

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 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.

6. It