Madras High Court
R.D.Vijayalakshmi Nachiyar vs Sivaraj on 6 September, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.R.P.(MD).No.1139 of 2021
1.R.D.Vijayalakshmi Nachiyar
2.R.Maathangi Nachiyar
3.R.Banumathi Nachiyar
4.R.Sathya Nachiyar ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Sivaraj
2.Chandrakala
3.Radhika
4.Sam Narayanan
5.S.Amudha
6.Ram Kumari
7.Ganesh Kumari
8.Gayathri
9.A.Balashanmugam
10.Sundari
11.Dinakar Rajeswaran @ Dinakar Raja
12.Banumathi Nachiyar
13.Meenal
14.Vidyavathi
15.Sindhiya Saradha Devi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
16.Sabari Mangalraj
17.Geetha Manickam
18.Vasanthapriya ...Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to direct the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, to take on
its file the un-numbered O.S.Diary No.2233 of 2021 [Filing
No.OS/294/2021] CNR.No.TNRM 010017902021, on the file of the
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram in refusing to number the plaint
and successively returned with endorsement dated 09.07.2021 and
20.07.2021 and to number the suit thereby allowing the Civil Revision
Petition.
For Petitioners :Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam
for Mr.A.Saravanan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to direct the Principal
District Court, Ramanathapuram, to number the suit in O.S.Diary No.2233
of 2021 [Filing No.OS/294/2021] CNR.No.TNRM 010017902021.
2.The petitioners herein are plaintiffs and the respondents herein are
defendants and these revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for
partition on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.Diary No.2233 of 2021 [Filing No.OS/294/2021] CNR.No.TNRM
010017902021. The plaint was returned many times.
3.The first return of the plaint on 09.07.2021, is as follows:
“1.When no cause of action is made out in
the averments of the plaint, how the plaintiffs are
seeking the relief of partition is to be explained.
2.As per the averments made in the plaint,
joinder of cause of action not arose in respect of
D11 to D18 with regard to partition. Hence, how
this suit is maintainable as against D11 to D18
who are neither co-owner nor co-sharer as per
the pleadings”. Hence returned. Time 30 days.
4.Again it was represented and again returned on 20.07.2021. The
second return of the plaint on 20.07.2021 is as follows:
“Returned on 20.07.2021
As per the averments plaintiffs, the
defendants 11 to 18 are not the direct legal heirs
of the deceased Dinakar Bahadur. The plaintiffs
are seeking for partition instead of seeking the
relief of declaration against the defendants 11 to
18. Hence previous return still hold good.
Times 30 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5.Both the grounds are not connected with each other. The Court
should not have power to return the plaint in multiple times. The registry,
should not have power to return the plaint multiple times, inventing newer
grounds for each successive return. In other words, a plaint or original
petition may be returned only once, and where anything is omitted to be done
at the first instance, the power of the Registry to return the plaint again shall
be foreclosed. The words are cited in the Judgment in the case of Selvaraj
and Ors., Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited and Ors.,
in CRP(MD) No.915,943,967,991 and 330 of 2020, dated 16.07.2021. The
aforesaid order was also discussed in the case of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation V. C.M.Hariraj [MANU/TN/0287/2002] reported in 2002-3-
LW-476, this Court held that the trial Court, at the numbering stage, cannot
test the correctness of the existence or otherwise of a cause of action and
reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) even prior to its numbering. The
Court observed:
“The question whether there is any cause
of action or not can be ultimately decided only
after issue of notice to the other side and the
Court cannot act as a spokesman of the
defendants”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6.The Court while taking a case on file have to decide that whether
there is any cause of action and it is not barred by any Act and whether it is
also come within the jurisdiction of that Court. The cause of action could be
decided after appearance of the defendants.
7.The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and
only the plaintiffs have right to implead necessary parties. It is not necessary
to implead the parties, even, there is no relief against the parties and
therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
8.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. The learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, is directed
to number the plaint, if it is otherwise in order. The revision petitioners are
directed to represent the plaint along with the copy of the order of this Court.
No costs.
Index :Yes/No 06.09.2021
Internet:Yes/No
ksa
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
To
The Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD).No.1139 of 2021
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
