HC dismisses suit filed by film producer against DyCM Udhayanidhi Stalin
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, while allowing the application moved by Stalin, held that though the producer has the right to claim relief, since he set the law in motion after the lapse of time stipulated under the limitation act, his claim cannot be maintained.
Madras High Court (File)
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court dismissed a suit filed by producer Ramasaravanan, claiming Rs 25 crore from Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for not completing his film project 'Angel', citing it is a time-barred claim.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, while allowing the application moved by Stalin, held that though the producer has the right to claim relief, since he set the law in motion after the lapse of time stipulated under the limitation act, his claim cannot be maintained.
According to the limitation act, the period of limitation for a suit for damages is restricted to three years; in this case the producer lapsed the period for remedy, hence the claim becomes time-barred and the suit cannot be laid on a time-barred claim, read the judgment.
The producer Ramasaravanan of OST films moved a civil suit against the release of Stalin-starrer ‘Maamannan’and claimed Rs 25 crore for not cooperating with his crew to complete the film ‘Angel’.
According to the producer, he made an oral agreement with Stalin to rope him for the lead role in ‘Angel’. After the inception of the project, his crew commenced the shoot in 2018. While 80 per cent of the shooting process was completed, Stalin announced his retirement from acting and said ‘Maamannan’ would be his last film, said the producer. He also alleged that Stalin was not cooperating to complete his film project, hence he suffered Rs 13 crore which was spent on the project.
Hence, he moved the suit to injunct ‘Maamannan’ release without completing his film and claimed to settle Rs 25 crore for the loss he suffered. While, the suit is pending, the court allowed the release of ‘Maamannan’, hence that limb of the suit became infructuous.
Meanwhile, Stalin filed an application seeking to vacate the suit.
Senior counsel NR Elango, appearing for the applicant, submitted that according to Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by the limitation act.
According to the plaintiff, the cause of action is July 16, 2018, under the limitation act, the suit must be initiated within three years which is July 15, 2021 in this case, said the senior counsel. However, the plaintiff moved the suit in 2023, hence on the expiry of the limitation period, the suit must be dismissed, he added.