Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 11-11-2026

Case Overview

  • The petition (Civil Revision Petition No.6001 of 2026 & CMP No.26039 of 2026) was filed by M/s.Hofinsoft Technologies Private Limited, represented by its Director Mr. Pallavur Unikkat Ajith Kumar, seeking revision of the order dated 15-07-2026 passed by the Commercial Court (District Judge) at Chengalpattu in I.A.No.1 of 2026, C.O.S.No.37 of 2026.
  • The underlying commercial suit filed by the respondent, M/s.Second Avenue Consulting Private Limited (Founder Director Mr. Jaishankar), sought recovery of money together with interest. The plaintiff claimed a part payment of Rs.3.15 lakhs was made on 04‑08‑2018 (substantiated by bank statement doc.No.6) and that subsequent WhatsApp messages (doc.No.5 series) between the parties from 2019 to 2023 acknowledged the debt.
  • The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the claim was barred by the three‑year limitation period under the Limitation Act and that the suit lacked a cause of action.
  • The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant’s application, holding that the limitation issue is a mixed question of law and fact that can be decided only at trial, and that the dispute falls within the definition of a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It also found that the pleadings sufficiently established a cause of action.
  • In the revision, the petitioner argued that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation, citing paragraphs 4‑11 and 14 of the plaint and emphasizing that the last payment was in 2018, well beyond the three‑year period when the suit was filed in 2025. The petitioner also contended that the WhatsApp messages relied upon by the plaintiff pertained to a personal transaction of Mr. Ajith and not to the defendant company.
  • The High Court examined the pleadings, the bank statement, and the WhatsApp messages. It observed that the messages showed an admission of liability and were not merely personal communications. The Court reiterated that determining whether the acknowledgment was made on behalf of the company or in a personal capacity is a factual inquiry that must be resolved at trial.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, sustained the impugned order dated 15-07-2026, and ordered that no costs be awarded. Consequently, the connected commercial suit (CMP) was also dismissed.

Topics: Commercial Dispute, Limitation Act, Civil Procedure