Condoning delay in re-presenting a plaint is a matter between court and plaintiff, preserving the defendant’s plea of limitation.

The 1st Respondent (Plaintiff) initially filed W.P. No. 8764 of 2013 challenging a building plan and seeking the removal of alleged encroachments by the Petitioner (3rd Defendant).

On June 25, 2013, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Plaintiff to approach a competent Civil Court for recovery of possession.

The Plaintiff presented a plaint (O.S.SR. No. 12647 of 2015) on December 17, 2015.

The Trial Court returned the plaint multiple times citing defects. It was re-presented after three distinct delays totaling 1718 days.

The Plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2020 to condone these delays, citing the difficulty in identifying the particulars of 93 defendants.

The Trial Court allowed the applications on payment of costs.

The Petitioner challenged these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending the suit was barred by limitation and the delay was unreasonable.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an irregularity or illegality in condoning the delay of 1718 days in the re-presentation of the plaint.

2. Whether the defendants have a right to intervene and challenge the condonation of delay at the pre-numbering stage of a suit.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that delay in re-presentation is primarily a matter between the Court and the Plaintiff.

The Court referred to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, regarding the rejection of a plaint if the relief is barred by law.

It further noted that the question of limitation involving mixed questions of fact and law requires a trial for adjudication.

While the Petitioner cited H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited v. Nahar Exports Limited (2015) 1 SCC 680 regarding the rigor of condoning delay, the Court focused on the discretionary power of the Trial Court at the scrutiny stage.

The High Court observed that at the stage of re-presentation, before a suit is officially numbered, the matter is strictly between the Court and the Plaintiff; consequently, defendants generally lack the standing to intervene in the Court's exercise of discretionary power to condone such delays.

The Court reasoned that although the Trial Court found the Plaintiff's explanation for the 1718-day delay (difficulty in tracing 93 defendants' details) to be not entirely "reasonable," it was within the Trial Court's discretion to allow the applications in the "interest of justice" upon payment of costs.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Petitioner’s primary grievance regarding the suit being barred by limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be summarily decided at the re-presentation stage.

The Court emphasized that the Petitioner and other defendants retain the legal right to raise the defense of limitation in their written statements or through an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC once they are served in the numbered suit.

The Court clarified that since the suit has now been numbered as O.S. No. 154 of 2022, the defendants are at liberty to raise all defenses, including limitation, via written statements or Order VII Rule 11 applications.

The Court directed the Trial Court to decide the suit on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

No order as to costs was made.