Madras High Court
N.Natesan vs Mani on 5 January, 2024
C.R.P.(PD).No.2662 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.(PD).No.2662 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.19629 of 2021
N.Natesan ... Petitioner
vs
1.Mani
2.Neelaveni
3.Chinnuswamy
4.Radhakrishnan
5.Shanmugam
6.Ravinathan
7.Arul
8.The Sub-Registrar,
Pallipalayam. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order dated
14.09.2021 passed in unnumbered suit 6173 of 2020 on the file of the Sub-
Court, Tiruchengode.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2662 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Viswanathan
for M/s.Dass and Viswa Associates
For R1 to R7 : Mr.C.Pushparaj
For R8 : Mr.C.Sathish
Government Advocate
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Court below rejecting the plaint.
2. The order rejecting the plaint is a deemed decree and therefore, the
party aggrieved by the same shall file an appeal before the Court to which the
regular first appeal will lie. Therefore, the civil revision petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable challenging the
order rejecting the plaint.
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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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 law laid down in the above mentioned case law, the
Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and consequently, the same is
dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file regular appeal challenging the
order of rejection of plaint. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.01.2024
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 to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Sub-Court, Tiruchengode.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Pallipalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
