R.PERUMAL NAICKER Vs. R.SAKRAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/first defendant has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition, praying for issuance of an order by this Court to call for the records pertaining to the impugned plaint filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and struck off the same. It comes to be known that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 322 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, as against the revision petitioner/first defendant and other three defendants, praying for passing of a preliminary decree in cancelling the alleged deed of power fraudulently obtained by the first defendant in collusion with the fourth respondent by forging the plaintiff signatures purported to be a power of attorney deed in favour of the second defendant, dated 28.01.1997, bearing document No. 25/97; to cancel the impugned sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, dated 07.09.1997 bearing document No. 3288/1997; and to cancel the impugned sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, dated 14.01.1999 bearing document No. 3120/1999.

(2.) It transpires that on behalf of the second and third defendants, written statements have been filed before the trial Court. Also, in the main suit, issues were framed and on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, proof affidavit has been filed by PW-1. The stage is now set for cross-examination of PW-1. In the main suit, the petitioner/first defendant has remained ex-pate. The third defendant, viz., M/s. Mahindra Industrial Park Ltd., Chennai 002, is contesting the main suit. In the main suit, PW-1 is to be cross examined and the matter stands adjourned to 10.06.2013 before the trial Court.

(3.) As seen from the memorandum of grounds, it is evident that a plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner/first defendant that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, failed to take into account, the law governing the subject matter of the suit to entertain the plaint in O.S. No. 322 of 2010 (filed by the respondent/plaintiff) as it was barred by the law of limitation. In this regard, the petitioner/first defendant has adverted to the Section 17 of the Contract Act 1872 which refers to "Effect of Fraud or Mistake".