Madras High Court
S.Selvarani vs Palanisamy on 18 November, 2021
CRP (NPD) No.2457 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP (NPD) No.2457 of 2021
and CMP No.18597 of 2021
S.Selvarani ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Palanisamy
2. Devaraj
3. Kaviarasan ... Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, against the docket order, dated 07.09.2021 in unnumbered
O.S.(Sr).No.333 of 2021 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Kangeyam and direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Kangeyam to number
the plaint in the said O.S.(Sr) No.333 of 2021 and take the suit on file.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Natarajan
ORDER
Since this revision is against the return of the plaint and the orders
of the Subordinate Court is passed even before numbering of the suit, notice
to the respondents is deemed unnecessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No.2457 of 2021
2. The challenge in this revision is to return of the plaint made by
the learned subordinate Judge, Kangeyam.
3. A perusal of the returns made by the learned Subordinate Judge
shows that he has chosen to wear the hat of the defendants to scrutinise the
plaint even before numbering. The suit is one for declaration of title of the
plaintiff and for consequential injunction. Upon presentation, the suit was
returned on 06.07.2021 with the following endorsement:
i. Market Value as per sale deed is Rs.10,46,000/-. So that
exceed of this Court jurisdiction, to be presented before
proper Court.
ii. Relief sought for in the prayer is contra to the
pleadings.”
4. The plaint was represented explaining those two issues showing
that the value of the subject matter of the suit is only Rs.9,58,730/-. Again
the plaint was returned on 12.07.2021 with the following endorsement:
“How the suit is maintainable without prayer of rectification
in the sale deed?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No.2457 of 2021
5. Again the counsel represented the plaint explaining the
maintainability of the suit. The copies of the Judgments in support of the
maintainability of the suit were also filed. Again the plaint was returned on
07.09.2021 with the following endorsement:
1. When the revenue records does not confer title, how the
suit is maintainable. Explain.
6. The above conduct of the learned Subordinate Judge shows that
he is oblivious of the scope or power to examine the plaint before
numbering. This Court in Selvaraj Vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant
India Limited, Rep. through its Project Director reported in
(2021) 5 MLJ 467 has laid down the procedure to be followed by the Courts
while returning plaints. If only the learned Subordinate Judge has gone
through the said Judgment, these kind of unwarranted returns would not
have been made by the learned Subordinate Judge. I am clearly of the
opinion that the orders of the return of plaint made by the learned
Subordinate Judge are in the face of the legal provisions, beyond the powers
of the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No.2457 of 2021
7. In view of the above, the orders of the return of plaint are set
aside and the learned Subordinate Judge, Kangeyam is directed to number
the suit and proceed with the same in accordance with law laid down in
Selvaraj Vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited, Rep.
through its Project Director reported in (2021) 5 MLJ 467, supra. The
counsel for the petitioner is directed to represent the original plaint within
15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.11.2021
vum
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
To:
The Subordinate Judge, Kangeyam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No.2457 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vum
CRP (NPD) No.2457 of 2021
and CMP No.18597 of 2021
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
