Madras High Court
K.Bhuvaneswari vs R.Lakshmi on 3 February, 2023
2023/MHC/458
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.1777 of 2023
1.K.Bhuvaneswari
2.Minor K.Dhakshan
S/o.Late Kumaran
Rep.by Mother & Natural Guardian
Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.R.Lakshmi
2.N.Selvi
3.R.Kalaiselvi ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to direct the Learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai to number the Interlocutory Application in I.A.SR.No.74462
of 2022 in O.S.No.1978 of 2022 filed by the petitioners and to decide the
same in accordance with law.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ganesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to direct the Learned XVI
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to number the Interlocutory
Application in I.A.SR.No.74462 of 2022 in O.S.No.1978 of 2022.
2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit filed
in O.S.No.1978 of 2022, instituted by the respondents for Declaration.
During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners filed an
Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the
plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action and on the ground of
limitation.
3. The grievances of the revision petitioners are that the Interlocutory
Application filed by them was not even numbered by the trial Court and the
issues raised in the Interlocutory Application to reject the plaint was dealt
with by the trial Court and the petition was returned.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that no
opportunity was granted to the revision petitioners even to place their
contentions and submit the citations. The decision taken without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
adjudication for returning the papers is improper.
5. No doubt, the Suits, Interlocutory Applications or Petitions filed by
the parties are to be scrutinized by the Court concerned and if the papers or
documents are not in order, then the Court concerned is bound to return the
papers for compliance of the defects. However, in the guise of compliance of
the defects, the Court cannot take a decision in respect of the grounds raised
in the petition and return the same.
6. A distinction is to be drawn with reference to the defects in the case
papers filed by the parties and the grounds or issues raised in the petition. If
at all the grounds raised in the petitions are to be considered, then the
petitions are to be numbered and to be heard in the Open Court by affording
opportunity to all the parties and thereafter, a decision is to be taken and
orders are to be passed. If at all the decision is taken in respect of the
grounds raised in the petition before numbering the case, then the parties are
deprived of their opportunity to present their case before the open Court
along with the citation or otherwise for the purpose of convincing the Court.
Such an opportunity is a valuable opportunity and therefore, the grounds
raised in the petitions or in the suits cannot be a reason for returning the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
case papers and all those grounds on merits are to be heard in the open
Court and thereafter, an order is to be passed, which is the established
principle. Hearing of the case in the open Court would pave way for the
parties to raise their grounds and objections, if any. Such a valuable
opportunity cannot be denied to the parties. In the event of taking a decision
unilaterally with reference to the grounds raised in the petition, the parties
are deprived of their right to argue their case or to present their case along
with supporting judgments or otherwise.
7. In the present case, the reason for return reveals that misjoinder of
parties is not a ground for rejection and in the plaint, there is a disclosure for
cause of action. It is a mixed question of law and fact as it cannot be said as
imaginary cause of action. The reason stated for return would reveal that the
trial Court has considered the issues and taken a decision on merits. Such a
course of action is impermissible and the decision in this regard is to be
taken only after hearing the parties in the open Court. Thus, the reason
recorded for returning the papers are neither candid nor convincing and the
return of case papers are to be made only with reference to the material
defects and adjudication of grounds or issues for returning of the papers
would not have been done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision petitioners are
at liberty to re-present the case papers to the Court concerned and in the
event of re-presentation, the Court concerned shall number the Interlocutory
Application, if the papers are otherwise in order and accordingly, hear the
matter in the open Court and thereafter, pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law.
9. With this liberty, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.216 of
2023 stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.02.2023
kak
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
Note: Registry, High Court of Madras, is directed to return the original
copy of the Interlocutory Application filed along with this revision petition
within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
To
The Learned XVI Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.R.P.No.216 of 2023
03.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
