Madras HC Keeps Recovery Suit Alive, Says Trial Must Decide Whether Director’s WhatsApp Messages Acknowledged Company Debt

In brief

The question

1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation, where the plaintiff relied on later communications as acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

The court held

The High Court held that the limitation question required trial and that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and a commercial dispute.

It also directed

Finding no perversity in the Commercial Court’s order, it dismissed the civil revision petition, sustained the order rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application, and dismissed the connected CMP; no costs were awarded.

01Facts

The respondent-plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of money with interest.

The petitioner-defendant applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action. The Commercial Court dismissed the application, finding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and that the plaint disclosed a commercial dispute and cause of action.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–6

In revision, the defendant relied on the plaint’s admission that the last part-payment was made on 4 August 2018 and argued that the suit, filed in 2025, was out of time. The plaintiff relied on WhatsApp messages and emails exchanged between 2019 and 2023 as acknowledgments of the debt.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation, where the plaintiff relied on later communications as acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7–12

ii.2. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and a dispute qualifying as a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6 · p. 7 · ¶ 13

03Law Applied

Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits rejection of a plaint on the grounds specified in that provision; the court considers the plaint and its supporting material, but should not conduct a mini-trial by resolving disputed factual questions at that stage.

pp. 3–7 · ¶ 6, 8, 12–13

Whether a claim is barred by limitation may be a mixed question of law and fact where its determination depends on disputed facts. Section 18 of the Limitation Act concerns acknowledgment of liability, an issue requiring factual assessment in this case. Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 defines “commercial dispute”.

pp. 3–7 · ¶ 6, 8, 12–13

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 2

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 18

04Reasoning

The plaint pleaded a last part-payment on 4 August 2018, supported by a bank statement, and relied on WhatsApp messages exchanged between 2019 and 2023 as acknowledgments of the debt.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10

The defendant disputed that the messages were sent on behalf of the company, contending that they concerned a personal transaction involving Mr. Ajith.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

Deciding the capacity in which the messages were sent, and whether they satisfied Section 18 of the Limitation Act, would require assessing disputed evidence and was therefore a matter for trial, not an Order VII Rule 11 determination.

p. 6 · ¶ 12

On the plaint and accompanying documents, the Court also found a cause of action and a commercial dispute, and held that the claim was not prima facie barred by limitation.

p. 7 · ¶ 13