Madras High Court
A.B.Farhatunissa vs M.Asharaf Ali on 26 September, 2023
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.24373 of 2019
A.B.Farhatunissa ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.M.Asharaf Ali
2.M.Abdul Jabbar
3.M.Md.Iliyas
4.M.Kousar Parveen
5.A.Sumaiya Banu
6.A.Mohammed Sahel Basha
7.A.Mohammed Omar
8.A.Mohammed Siddique Basha
9.A.Mohammed Salim
10.A.Mohammed Aslam
11.A.Mohammed Ashfaque
12.S.Mumtaz Begum
13.A.Kathija Shaheem
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
14.A.Umma Salma
15.A.A.Juria Banu
16.A.Khairunnisa
17.A.Nasewemunnisa
18.M.Bhaskar
19.M/s.Canara Bank
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai - 79.
20.The Authorized Officer,
Asset Recovery Management Branch,
Canara Bank,
Spencer Tower - 11 First Floor
770A, Anna Salai
Chennai.
21.M.Mehbubunnisa
22.A.Mohammed Sadiq
23.A.Mohammed Salman Sahith
24.A.Ameena Misbuka
25.A.Rafique Ahmed
26.A.Shayik Ahamed
27.A.Kizar Hussain
28.A.Thaslim Banu
29.A.Athiya Banu
30.Padmavathi
31.Santhanalakshmi
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
32.Senthilkumar
33.Kavitha
34.Kamalammal
35.G.Arun
36.Noorul Basar
37.A.Safina Mushkoth
38.A.Firdose Nasreen
39.A.Suheb Fahad
40.A.Rabiya Ruksana
41.A.Falak Naaz
42.A.Nadira Nusrath
43.A.Ifra Mashooda ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to direct the Subordinate Judge,
Ranipet to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.215 of 2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam
For Respondents : Ms.Sri Ranjani for T.P.Prabakaran
1 to 5
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
For Respondent : Mr.D.Suresh Kumar
20
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Hemalatha
18, 30 to 34
For Respondent : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
19
For Respondents : No Appearance
6 to 17, 21 to 29, 35 to 43
**********
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the
plaint in O.S.No.215 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.
2. The revision is predicated on the ground, the suit is an abuse
of process of law. The plea being the property of a partnership firm
is sought to be partitioned in O.S.No.215 of 2010 leaving out the civil
revision petitioner, who has share in the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
3. Mr.Aravind Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing
for Sriprada Prabhakar would submit the aforesaid statement and
wants this Court to strike off the plaint on the file of Subordinate
Judge, Ranipet.
4. I pointed out that in case of abuse of process of law, remedy
is available under Order VI Rule 16, by filing an interlocutory
application in the suit, and in case the plaint does not have a cause of
action, remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is available. I pointed out
that the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma
Paribalana Sabai & Others v. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019)9
SCC 538 has held that where an effective remedy is available under
the Code of Civil Procedure, a revision under Article 227 should not
be normally entertained. Following the said judgment, granting
liberty to the petitioner to move a petition either under Order VI Rule
16 or under Order VII Rule 11, this revision is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
5. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019 is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.24373 of 2019 is closed.
26.09.2023
rna/shl
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Ranipet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J,
rna/shl
C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.24373 of 2019
26.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
