Madras High Court
Shanmugam vs Chief Secretary/Chairman on 24 January, 2022
CRP.No.852 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP.No.852 of 2021
and
CMP.No.7029 of 2021
1.Shanmugam
2.Selvaraj
3.Raja @ Vengatesan
4.Srinivasan
5.Chitra
6.Vasanthi ... Petitioners
Vs
1.Chief Secretary/Chairman,
Commercial Tax Department,
Commissioner/Commercial Tax,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2.Joint Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department,
(Business Taxation), Trichy.
3.Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department,
(Business Taxation), Ariyalur.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.852 of 2021
4.Commissioner/Central Government &
Freight & Service Tax Department,
Trichy.
5.State Commercial Tax Officer (Business Tax Officer),
Commercial Tax Department,
Perambalur.
6.Krishnamurthy ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.156 of 2020 filed by the 6 th
Respondent / Plaintiff on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.
For Petitioners :Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Usharamman
For Respondents :Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran (for R1, R2, R3 & R5)
Government Advocate
Mr.S.Gurumoorthy (for R4)
Mr.T.Sellapandian (for R6)
ORDER
The first defendant in O.S.No.156 of 2020 has filed this revision
petition seeking to strike off the plaint in the said suit primarily, on two
grounds. One that the suit is barred by limitation and the other is that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.852 of 2021
plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts. The revision has been
filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
2.Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners would point out that the plaintiff resigned from the partnership
even in the year 1992 and he had lodged a criminal complaint stating that
the document of release is forged. This Court had in Crl.O.P.No.10106 of
2019 etc. quashed the said complaint on the ground of enormous delay in
challenging the said release deed. He would also point out that an attempted
SLP against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Therefore, according to Mr.B.Kumar, it is after the dismissal of the
SLP, the first respondent has launched the present suit seeking injunction
restraining the respondents from interfering with this enjoyment of the
property as a partner.
3.The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that the
Managing Partners of Kali Chettiyar and Sons the partnership firm had filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.852 of 2021
a suit in O.S.No.150 of 2016 against the first respondent herein and his wife
Tamilselvi seeking an injunction restraining them from interfering with their
conduct of the business. The first respondent herein had filed an application
seeking rejection of the said plaint, which was dismissed by the trial Court.
The revision against the said order in CRP(PD)No.1597 of 2018 was also
dismissed by this Court on 08.07.2019. It is also pointed out that an
attempted challenge to the said judgment of this Court before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also been rejected. Therefore, according to the learned
Senior Counsel, the plaint in O.S.No.156 of 2020 deserves to be rejected.
4. I do not think this is a fit case where the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised to reject the plaint. The claim
made is that the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff is guilty of
suppression of facts. Mere suppression of facts do not afford a ground for
rejection of a plaint. The aspect of limitation has to be gone into. But, I do
not think the same could be conveniently gone into in a proceeding under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.852 of 2021
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal
Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society
reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538 had held that the High Court will refrain from
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as a
matter of 'prudence and discipline' when a remedy under the Code of Civil
Procedure is available to the litigant. The petitioners can well invoke the
jurisdiction of the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and seek rejection of the plaint on the very same grounds, which
are now sought to be urged before this Court.
6. I do not think I will be justified in exercising the jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the light of the observations
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma
Paribalana Sabai and Others cited supra and the availability of a remedy to
the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Hence, while dismissing this revision, I reserve the liberty to the petitioners
to seek rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure before the trial Court. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.852 of 2021
with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.01.2022
vs
Internet : Yes
Index : No
Speaking order
To:
1.The District Munsif Court,
Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.852 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs
CRP.No.852 of 2021 and
CMP.No.7029 of 2021
24.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
