Madras High Court
S.Ramar vs S.Thachanamoorthi on 29 November, 2021
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.5578 of 2021
1.S.Ramar
2.M.Murugesan
3.S.Ponnumariammal
4.K.Sekar
5.Kamalraj
6.J.Thangam .. Petitioners/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
-vs-
1.S.Thachanamoorthi
2.Sennaiah
3.R.Mariappan .. Respondents/Petitioners/
Defendants 6 to 8
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
call for the records pertaining to the judgment and decree passed in
I.A.No.141 of 2018 in O.S.No.205 of 2017 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, dated 13.03.2019 and set aside the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Velrajan
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
For Respondents : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
******
ORDER
The superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India has been invoked by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.
205 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti
challenging the rejection of the plaint.
2.Though in the normal circumstances, an order rejecting the plaint
is appealable, the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked on account
of the fact that the very order rejecting the plaint is patently erroneous.
3.The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the above Civil
Revision Petition, are narrated hereinbelow:-
3.1.The revision petitioners had filed the suit in O.S.No.205 of
2017 in a representative capacity for the following relief:-
“m) tHf;F 1-k; jgrpy; brhj;Jf;fs;
faj;jh; tl;lk;. jPj;jhk;gl;o fpuhk bghJ kf;fSf;F
bghJthf ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd tpsk;g[if
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
bra;ak
[ hWk;. mjidj; bjhlh;e;J tHf;F 1-k;
jgrpy; brhj;Jf;fis ic& jPj;jhk;gl;o fpuhk
bghJ kf;fs; bghJthf gad;gLj;Jtjw;F
gpujpthjpfnsh. mth;fsJ tifahl;fnsh.
Kfth;fnsh vt;tpj ,il";rYk; bra;af;Tlhbjd
mth;fSf;F vjpuhf xU epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis
ghpfhuk; tH';FkhWk;.
M) tHf;F 1tJ jgrpy; 1-k; mapl;l
brhj;jpy; 9 Kjy; 12 gpujpthjpfs; fl;oa[s;s 2-k;
jgrpy; fl;olj;ij ic& 9 Kjy; 12 gpujpthjpfs;
mfw;wpj; jUkhW mth;fSf;F vjpuhf xU
braYWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; tH';fp
cj;jutpLkhWk;/”
4.In compliance with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8, the
plaintiffs had also effected a public notification in one issue of a Tamil
Daily. The respondents/defendants 6 to 8, on entering appearance, took
out an application to reject the plaint on two grounds viz., (i) that the
plaintiffs have grossly undervalued the suit and (ii) that the suit is barred
by law, since the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 have not been complied
with, as the plaintiffs have not obtained the Court's permission under
Order 1 Rule 8.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
5.The learned Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti rejected the
plaint only on the ground that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 had not
been complied with, as no permission to sue in a representative capacity
has been obtained by the plaintiffs. However, the learned Judge did not
pass any order with reference to the issue of undervaluation.
Challenging this order, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have invoked
the jurisdiction of this Court, since the impugned order is patently
erroneous.
6.Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.
7.The only ground for rejecting the plaint is that the permission of
the Court has not been obtained by the plaintiff to sue in a representative
capacity. The records produced, on the side of the revision petitioners,
would indicate that the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.885 of 2017 seeking
permission to sue in a representative capacity. This application has been
ordered on 24.10.2017 and necessary publication has also been effected.
Therefore, the order is, per se on the face of the record, incorrect.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
Therefore, this Court is well within its jurisdiction to set aside the order
and restore the suit back to the file, since pursuant to the order passed in
I.A.No.141 of 2018, the suit has been dismissed.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the
order is erroneous. However, he would request that the issue of court fee
be left open to be taken as a preliminary issue.
9.Taking into account the above submission, this Court is allowing
the Civil Revision Petition thereby, setting aside the order passed in
I.A.No.141 of 2018 and also the consequent dismissal of the suit in
O.S.No.205 of 2017. The suit is, therefore, restored to the file of the
learned Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti. If the respondents raise the
issue of court fee, it is well open to the court below to treat the same as a
preliminary issue. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
29.11.2021
abr
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The Principal District Munsif Court,
Kovilpatti
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.983 of 2021
Dated: 29.11.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
