Hofinsoft Technologies Private Limited vs Second Avenue Consulting Private Limited

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On :
Delivered on :
05-11-2026
11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
C ivil R evision P etition No.6001 of 2026
CMP.N & o .26039 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012174922026}
M/s.Hofinsoft Technologies Private
Limited, Represented by its Director,
Mr.Pallavur Unikkat Ajith Kumar,
Having Address at No.25,
VGP Murphy Square,
II Cross Street, St.Thomas Mount,
Chennai-16.
...Petitioner
Vs
M/s.Second Avenue Consulting
Private Limited, Represented
by its Founder Director Mr.Jaishankar,
Having Address at No.4,
Mangala Ganesh, 29 (New)/
15 (Old), IV Seaward Road,
Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai 600 041.
...Respondent
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
PETITION under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
against dated 15.7.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in C.O.S.No.37 of
2026 on the file of the Commercial Court (District Court) at
Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Venkat Raman for
M/s.Tatva Legal Chennai
For Respondent: Mr.Suresh Madhavaraj
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of
the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decretal order dated
15.7.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in C.O.S.No.37 of 2026 on the
file of the Commercial Court (District Judge) at Chengalpattu  (for
short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the
petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code (CPC) seeking to reject the plaint, came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available
on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the said commercial
suit against the petitioner/defendant seeking for the relief of
recovery of money together with interest.
5. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the said
application seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the relief
sought for in the said suit was clearly barred by limitation and that
the said suit lacked any cause of action.
6. The Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the said
application on the ground that the limitation in the present case was
a mixed question of law and fact and that the same could be
decided only during trial. The Court below also rendered a finding
that a reading of the plaint would establish that the dispute in
question fell within the definition of the term “commercial dispute”
under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court
below also found that there were sufficient pleadings establishing
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
the cause of action for filing the said suit. Aggrieved by that, the
above revision has been filed before this Court.
7. The main ground that was urged on the side of the
petitioner/defendant was that the relief sought for in the said
commercial suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. In order to
substantiate the same, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner/defendant relied upon the averments in the plaint and
more particularly paragraphs 4 to 11 and 14 in the plaint. It was
further submitted that the admitted facts in the plaint were that the
last payment was made on 04.8.2018, that thereafter, there was
absolutely no pleading that the defendant had acknowledged the
debt whereas the suit came to be filed only in the year 2025, which
would be much beyond the period of three years limitation and that
therefore, the said suit was barred by the law of limitation.
8. The Court below, while dealing with the grounds raised by the
petitioner/defendant, took into consideration the averments made in
the plaint and also the documents filed along with the plaint. The
Court below found that there were whatsapp messages exchanged
between the parties where there was an admission of liability and
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
that the issue as to whether it would satisfy the requirement of
Section 18 of the Limitation Act, was a matter, which could be
decided only during trial.
9. On carefully going through the pleadings, it is seen that the
respondent/plaintiff specifically stated that the last part payment
was made on 04.8.2018 to the tune of Rs.3.15 lakhs. The same was
also substantiated by doc.No.6 – the bank statement relied upon by
the respondent/plaintiff. The further averment made in the plaint
would be that between 2019 and 2023, the parties were exchanging
multiple whatsapp messages and mails and those whatsapp
messages were filed as doc.No.5 series.
10. On going through those whatsapp messages, it is seen that
one Mr.Ajith was exchanging the messages with the respondent/
plaintiff, that some part payment was also made and that in the
meantime, the petitioner/defendant was not denying the liability.
Those whatsapp messages were relied upon by the respondent/
plaintiff to substantiate the acknowledgment of debt under Section
18 of the Limitation Act.
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/
defendant submitted that those messages that were relied upon by
the respondent/plaintiff did not pertain to the defendant company
and that it was a personal transaction between the said Mr.Ajith and
the respondent/plaintiff company.
12. As rightly found by the Court below, the issue as to whether
the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff in the present case was
barred by limitation or not, is a mixed question of fact and law. A
Court dealing with an application for rejection of the plaint cannot
conduct a mini trial by interpreting the documents relied upon by
the respondent/plaintiff and find out as to whether any
acknowledgement was done in the individual capacity of the said
Mr.Ajith or it was done on behalf of the petitioner/defendant
company. This is clearly a matter for trial.
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
13. On carefully reading all the averments made in the plaint
together with the documents filed along with the plaint, this Court
finds that the dispute involved is a commercial dispute, that there is
a cause of action for filing the said suit and that prima facie, the
relief sought for is not barred by limitation. This Court is of the view
that the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer
from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.
14. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision
petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 15.7.2026
passed in I.A No.1 of 2026 in C.O.S.No.37 of 2026 on the file of the
Commercial Court (District Judge) at Chengalpattu is sustained. No
costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.
11-11-2026
To
The Commercial Court
(District Court), Chengalpattu.
RS
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )

CRP.No.6001 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS

CRP.No.6001 of 2026&
CMP.No.26039 of 2026
11-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )