Madras High Court
M.D.Sadagopan vs Vasantha on 2 January, 2024
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1978 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1978 of 2019
M.D.Sadagopan ... Petitioner
vs
1.Vasantha
2.Thulasi
3.M.D.Janardhanam
4.M.D.Lakshmipathi
5.J.Balaji
6.J.Meenakshi
7.Minor L.Yuvaran
S/o M.D.Lakshmipathi,
Represented by his father, next friend &
Natural Guardian M.D.Lakshmipathi,
No.35, Bhajanai Koil Street,
Mathur Village, Sriperambudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
8.M/s. Arun Excello Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by its Managing Director,
“Bhattad” Towers, No.18, West Cott Road,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1978 of 2019
9.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
10.The Sub-Registrar,
Sriperumbudur Sub-Registrar Office,
Kancheepuram District.
11.The Sub-Registrar,
Sunguvarchattram Sub-Registrar Office,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the
order to number the O.S and dispose on merits dated 27.03.2014 passed by
the District Court No. II, Kancheepuram in O.S.Sr.No.3386 of 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anil Sandeep
For R3, R4 and R7 : Mr.T.M.Mano
for M/s.Paul and Paul
For R8 : M/s.R.Kamala Rani
For R9 to R11 : Mr.C.Sathish
Government Advocate (CS)
For R1 and R6 : Batta and Want of Abroad
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Court below rejecting the plaint.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that an order passed by the Court below rejecting the plaint even before
numbering cannot be treated as a deemed decree and therefore, the revision
under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable.
3. I had an occasion to consider the maintainability of revision against
the order rejecting the unnumbered plaint in T.Kumar vs. Pavai Varam
Educational Trust reported in MANU/TN/9817/2022, the relevant
observation in the said case law reads as follows:-
“7. A close scrutiny of the definition of the expression
'decree' would make it clear that the draft man himself had a
doubt that order of rejection of plaint may not come within the
wordly definition of the expression 'decree'. Since it will not
come within the definition as found in first limb of Section 2(2)
of CPC, he had chosen to bring it under the inclusive definition
by including it in the second limb of definition. Therefore,
Section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure does not make any
distinction between the rejection of plaint before numbering
and after numbering. In such case, an order of rejection of
plaint even before numbering of the same, shall be treated as a
deemed decree and consequently the revision is not
maintainable, in view of availability of regular appeal remedy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Section 96 of CPC.
8. It is also useful to refer to the judgement of this Court
reported in MANU/TN/2570/2016 (A.Ramanathan vs. Tamarai
Mills Ltd) wherein this Court after referring to the unreported
judgement of the Division Bench of this Court made in
C.R.P.(PD).No.1211 of 2013 dated 28.08.2014 observed as
follows:-
“12. The Division Bench of this Court, in the unreported
Judgment dated 28.08.2014 referred supra, has clearly held
that if a Court of Law passes an order for rejection of plaint,
under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, it has the force
of “Decree” and therefore, regular “Appeal” lies under Civil
Procedure Code and in fact, no “Revision” would lie.”
9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that this Civil Revision Petition
challenging the order passed by the Court below rejecting the
plaint in unnumbered stage is not maintainable."
4. In view of the settled position that no revision will lie against the
order rejecting even unnumbered plaint, the Civil Revision Petition filed by
the petitioner is not maintainable and as a necessary consequence, the same is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a regular appeal challenging the
order impugned in this revision. No Costs.
02.01.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
dm
Note to Registry:-
The Registry is directed to return the copy of the
original impugned order dated 27.03.2014 made in
Unnumbered OS.SR.No.3386 of 2013 to the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
To
1.The District Court No. II,
Kancheepuram.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Sriperumbudur Sub-Registrar Office,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Sub-Registrar,
Sunguvarchattram Sub-Registrar Office,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
