Madras High Court
Nageshwari vs Petchiammal ...R-1/Plaintiff on 23 February, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.R.P.(MD)No.1522 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7983 of 2019
1.Nageshwari
2.Sathiyanathan
3.Rajeshwari
4.Parameswaran
5.Shanthi
6.Parameshwari
7.Ramanathan ...Petitioners/D-6 to D-12
Vs.
1.Petchiammal ...R-1/Plaintiff
2.Muthaiah
3.Karuppasamy
4.Palanichami
5.Venkateswaran
6.Lakshmanan ...R-2 to R-6/D-1 to D-5
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition setting aside the order dated
12.07.2019 made in I.A.No.504 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 on the file of
the learned District Munsif, Andipatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Petitioners :Mr.V.Murugan
For R-1 :Mr.Prabha, for
Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
For R-2 to R-6 :No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside order, dated
12.07.2019 in I.A.No.504 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 passed by the learned
District Munsif, Andipatti.
2.The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court
below.
3.The defendant Nos.7 to 13 have filed a petition in I.A.No.504 of
2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the learned District Munsif,
Andipatti, under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, to strike off the
plaint with exemplary Costs for the reasons mentioned herein. The said
petition was dismissed on 12.07.2019. Aggrieved over the said order, the
revision petitioners are before this Court.
4.Heard on either side and perused the material documents available on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated
12.07.2019 in I.A.No.504 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 passed by the learned
District Munsif, Andipatti, which was filed for rejection of plaint under
order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, on three grounds and one is that
there is no cause of action in the plaint and the second is that the property
was purchased in the year 2009, but the suit was filed after lapse of eight
years i.e., in the year 2017 which is barred under the Limitation Act and the
third is abuse of process of law.
6.The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2017 for declaration
and permanent injunction. Subsequently, he has filed a amendment petition
to withdraw the prayer of declaration. So, it is abuse of process of law. But,
already an amendment petition was dismissed by the Court below. At the
time of deciding the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code,
only the pleading in the plaint can be allowed into. In the plaint, there is
cause of action was stated in paragraph No.9. As the plaintiff purchased the
property on 23.12.2009 and the defendants have disturbed his possession on
30.12.2016. This is a cause of action and the rights of the plaintiff is
infrinched on 30.12.2016. As per cause of action, he has filed the suit in the
year 2016 and hence, suit is not barred by limitation. The third one is abuse
of process of law. The plaintiff has not purchased the property from this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
revision petitioners. It can be decided only after full trial. The withdrawal
of declaration of relief is also dismissed by the Court below. So, the third
ground pleaded by the petitioners is already decided by the trial Court and
rightly dismissed the petition.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied upon
the Judgment in SLP (CIVIL )No.31844 of 2018 in K.Akbar Ali Vs. K.Umar
Khan & Ors. The paragraph No.13 is extracted hereunder:
.....
“The Division Bench of the High Court has
done substantial justice by nipping in the bud, a suit
which is ex facie not maintainable for want of cause
of action against the defendants or any of them,
thereby saving precious judicial time as also
inconvenience and expenditure to the parties to the
suit”
8.In the case on hand, there is a cause of action is stated in the
paragraph No.9. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition in
I.A.No. 504 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2017. The pleading raised by the
petitioner can be decided only after full trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed by confirming the order, dated 12.07.2019 in I.A.No.504 of 2018
in O.S.No.3 of 2017 passed by the learned District Munsif, Andipatti. No
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 23.02.2022
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.
To
The District Munsif,
Andipatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.1522 of 2019
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
