Madras High Court
A.Ahammed Moideen @ Babu vs Manjula on 30 September, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.1654 of 2017
A.Ahammed Moideen @ Babu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Manjula
2.K.Chandrasekar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 03.11.2016
made in I.A.No.603 of 2016 in O.S.No.172 of 2016 on the file of the
District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Mettupalayam.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
For Respondents : Mr.T.Karunakaran
ORDER
Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order
dated 03.11.2016 made in I.A.No.603 of 2016 in O.S.No.172 of 2016 on
the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court,
Mettupalayam.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through
Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode and the learned counsel for the
respondents, who is appearing before this Court physically and perused
the entire materials on record.
3.The petitioner is defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.172 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial
Magistrate's Court, Mettupalayam. The respondents filed the said suit for
mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
I.A.No.603 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the
plaint.
4.According to the petitioner, by seeking relief of mandatory
injunction, the respondents are seeking possession of 75 sq.ft. of land.
The value of 75 sq.ft. is Rs.1,50,000/-. The respondents have not paid
correct Court fee. In view of the same, the Court has no pecuniary
jurisdiction. The respondents have constructed the building contrary to
the approved plan without leaving any side setback. The respondents
have also suppressed the settlement arrived between the vendors of the
petitioner and respondents. The respondents have not approached the
Court with clean hands. They have suppressed the consent deed dated
22.12.2008. The plaint does not disclose cause of action and prayed for
rejection of the plaint.
5.The respondents filed counter affidavit and denied various
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above I.A. and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
contended that the respondents are seeking only mandatory injunction for
removal of encroachment made by the petitioner. They have not filed
suit for possession of 75 sq.ft. of land. The respondents have paid Court
fee for the relief sought for in the present suit. The value given by the
petitioner is whimsical. The plaint has to be taken as such and it cannot
be as claimed by the defendant/petitioner. The reason given by the
petitioner for rejection of plaint is not contemplated under the provisions
of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and prayed for dismissal of the said I.A.
6.The learned Judge considering the averments in the plaint,
documents filed by the respondents, affidavit, counter affidavit in
I.A.No.603 of 2016 and the judgments relied on by the respondents,
dismissed the I.A.
7.Against the said fair and decretal order dated 03.11.2016 made in
I.A.No.603 of 2016 in O.S.No.172 of 2016, the petitioner has come out
with the present Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
8.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner is
seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the respondents are seeking
possession of 75 sq.ft. of land in the guise of mandatory injunction. As
the respondents are indirectly seeking possession of 75 sq.ft. from the
petitioner, they have to pay the Court fee for the market value of the said
75 sq.ft. The value of the said 75 sq.ft. is Rs.1,50,000/- and hence, the
Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction.
9.It is well settled that while considering the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., only the averments made in the plaint and
documents along with plaint are relevant. The averments in the written
statement, affidavit filed in support of the application filed to reject the
plaint and documents filed cannot be considered for rejection of plaint.
The plaint has to be read as a whole and averments made therein has to
be taken as correct. A reading of the plaint in the present case shows that
the respondents alleged that the petitioner has encroached the
respondents' property and put up a compound wall. The respondents have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
sought for mandatory injunction for removal of said compound wall. No
where in the plaint it is stated that the respondents have sought for
possession of 75 sq.ft. of land. The petitioner is interpreting the
averments in the plaint to the effect that the respondents are seeking
possession of 75 sq.ft. of land. The said interpretation cannot be
considered in the application for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII
Rule 11 of C.P.C. Taking into consideration the averments in the plaint as
correct, the Court has to see that whether the suit is under valued or
plaint does not disclose cause of action. The respondents in paragraph 7
of the plaint have disclosed cause of action for the suit. The learned
Judge considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and the
grounds on which the petitioner is seeking rejection of plaint, held that
the petitioner failed to prove his case that plaint is under valued and
plaint does not disclose cause of action and rightly dismissed the I.A. by
giving cogent and valid reason. There is no error or irregularity in the
order of the learned Judge warranting interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
10.For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. The suit is of the year 2016 and the learned Judge is directed
to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within
six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
kj
To
The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate
Mettupalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
Kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.1654 of 2017
30.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
