Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, D. Mohanraj, filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Principal District Court, Puducherry, rejecting his plaint at the SR (scrutiny) stage on the ground of limitation. The petitioner had filed an unnumbered suit (Unnumbered OS No. /2025) seeking certain reliefs. The trial court, without numbering the suit or affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff's counsel, rejected the plaint solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that the trial court did not even post the matter for maintainability to enable the counsel to advance arguments on the sustainability of the plaint. The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Selvaraj and Others vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited (2021 (4) CTC 539), held that the role of the court at the institution stage is primarily ministerial and not judicial. The court is not bound to conduct a roving inquiry or perform any judicial functions at that point. The rejection of the plaint at the SR stage without numbering the suit and without hearing the plaintiff was improper. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to number the plaint, provided it is otherwise in order, without putting limitation against the revision petitioner. The court clarified that this order would not preclude the defendants from raising a plea of limitation by invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC after the suit is numbered and served. The Registry of the Madras High Court was directed to return the original plaint to enable the petitioner to re-present the same within one week.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Institution of Suit - SR Stage - Role of Court - The court's role at the numbering stage is primarily ministerial, not judicial; it cannot conduct a roving inquiry or reject a plaint on merits without numbering the suit and hearing the plaintiff - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 - Held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint at the SR stage on limitation without posting the matter for maintainability (Paras 2-4). B) Limitation - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and can be raised by the defendant after service of summons - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - Held that the order rejecting the plaint is set aside, and the trial court shall number the suit without prejudice to the defendants' right to raise limitation at a later stage (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court can reject a plaint at the SR (scrutiny) stage on the ground of limitation without affording an opportunity of hearing and without numbering the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Principal District Court, Puducherry in Unnumbered OS.SR.No. of 2025. Directed the trial court to number the plaint, provided it is otherwise in order, without putting limitation against the revision petitioner. Registry of Madras High Court directed to return the original plaint to enable the petitioner to re-present the same within one week.
Law Points
- Role of court at institution stage is ministerial
- not judicial
- rejection of plaint at SR stage without hearing is improper
- limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be decided after trial or under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
