Madras High Court
Temple Tower Owners Welfare vs State Bank Of India on 11 September, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
C.R.P.No.3599 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.No.3599 of 2024
and
C.M.P. No.19518 of 2024
Temple Tower Owners Welfare
Association-Nandanam
Temple Towers,
New No.672, Old No.476, Ground Floor
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035
Rep. by its Secretary
Mr.G.Sarath Babu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Bank of India
Stressed Assets Management Branch,
Red Cross Building, No.32, Montieth Road
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008
2. Mrs.M.Sailaja
3. Minor M.Nihar Mohan Choudhary
Represented by his mother and
guardian Mrs.M.Sailaja
4. Minor M.Niyathi Raam Choudhary
represented by her mother and
guardian Mrs.M.Sailaja ...Respondents
1 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3599 of 2024
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside and reverse the order of the learned Judge passed in plaint
docket order dated 08.07.2024 in O.S.SR.No.4445 of 2024 by the 1st Additional
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sudharshana Sundar
for SR.Mounaswamynathan
ORDER
This revision has been filed seeking to set aside and reverse the order of the
learned Judge passed in plaint docket order dated 08.07.2024 in O.S.SR.No.4445
of 2024 by the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The brief facts is that the petitioner is the Flat Owners Welfare
Association. The petitioner filed a suit seeking direction to the
respondents/defendants to pay the plaintiff Association an amount of
Rs.46,32,743/- being the arrears of maintenance charges, electricity charges and
maintenance capital expenditure share for the period from 01.10.2015 to
31.01.2024 inrespect of schedule premises based on the proportionate share held
by each of the defendants and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant from in any manner attempting to bring the schedule property to public
auction, without disclosing the subsisting liabilities of the plaintiff. The suit was
filed on 06.04.2024 and it was taken in O.S.SR.No.4445 of 2024 and on
10.04.2024, the suit was returned seeking certain clarification and it was
represented on 22.04.2024. Once again, it was returned on 08.07.2024.
3. For the sake of clarity, the orders of return and the endorsement made at
the time of representation are extracted hereunder:-
Proceedings in O.S.SR.No.4445 of 2024
1. How the present suit is maintainable before this Court when the 1st
defendant already sealed the suit schedule property on 11.09.2015?
2. If so, how the present suit is filed in time?
3. Under order 32 Rule (3) petition to be filed for minor defendant.
4. In Para 16, court fee section to be corrected.
5. Before me to be obtained in Vakalat.
6. Two more outer docket sheet to be attached
7. Whether any SARFAESI proceedings initiated against suit schedule
property?
Time in 10 days.
Sd.xxx
SHR II
10.04.2024
Complied with representation along with the following clarifications:-
1 & 2: The 1st defendant has illegally sealed the entire premises part of
which is owned by the defendants 2 to 4 and the same has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
challenged in the High Court of Madras and at DRT, Chennai. The
present suit is therefore filed only for paying monthly maintenance
which was lastly paid by the defendants 2 to 4 on 7/2/2024 which is
highlighted in Page No.5 at paragraph 10.
Hence, the present suit is filed.
3. Now petition is filed for appointing the 2nd defendant as natural
guardian of the minors defendants 3 and 4.
4. Corrected and complied.
5. Attestation has been obtained in the Vakalat.
6. Two more dockets are attached.
7. No proceedings are pending in terms of suit schedule property under
SARFAESI.
Sd.xxxxxx
22.04.2024
Counsel for Plaintiff
Submitted for orders
Whether suit may be taken on file.
For hearing on maintainability
Sd.xxxxxxxx
29/04/2024
Call before Court for hearing on maintainability on 29.04.2024
At request to 06/06/2024
Sd.xxxxxxxx
29/04/2024
06.06.2024
Arguments heard from the counsel for the plaintiff in part. He has
produced a citation. Court at his request adjourned to 14.06.2024.
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.6/6/2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.06.2024
Continuation of arguments.
At request from the counsel for the plaintiff adjourned to 20.06.2024.
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.14/6/2024
20.06.2024
Call on 25.06.2024
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.20/6/2024
25.06.2024
Counsel for the plaintiff present call on 28.06.2024.
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.25/6/2024
28.06.2024
Citations are perused. Call on 2.7.2024 to hear the counsel for the
plaintiff with regard to the citations and the question of maintainability
of the suit.
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.28/6/2024
02.07.2024
Question of maintainability of the suit. Call on 04.07.2024.
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.02/7/2024
04.07.2024
Call on 06.07.2024
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.06/7/2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
06.07.2024
Question of maintainability of the suit. Call on 08.07.2024.
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.06/7/2024
08.07.2024
Question of maintainability of the suit.
Returned
1. How the suit for recovery of money is maintainable against D1 State
Bank of INdia, who has no liability for the plaintiff?
2. How the suit relilef presenting the D1 from taking any action in
respect of the suit property after admitting the fact that D1 ad took the
symbolic physical possession of the suit property for the recovery of the
loan amount borrowed by the husband of D2 and father of D3 and D4
is maintainable to be stated?
Time 2 weeks.
Sd.xxxxxxxxxxxx
I Add.Judge.08/7/2024
4. Being aggrieved by the docket order dated 08.07.2024, the present
revision has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the counsel for the
petitioner before the trial Court was directed by the Court to address the issue of
maintainability and the learned counsel had by relying on the judgment in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2004) 4SCC
311 and Tajunissa and Another Vs. Vishal Sharma and Others reported in 2022
SCC Online Del 18, argued stating that the suit against recovery of maintenance
amount is maintainable. However, the Court without passing orders on merits, has
once again returned the plaint. The learned counsel submitted that this Court in
the case of Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited
reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 2514 has set out the parameters under which
scrutiny of plaints can be done at the preliminary/pre-registration stage and held
that the Courts cannot conduct mini trials at the stage of numbering the suit which
is, ex-facie, inconsistent with the parameters set out therein. He would further
submit that if the Court is not convinced, it has to either pass an order rejecting
the plaint and against which, the petitioner can proceed in accordance with law,
whereas, returning the plaint repeatedly for the very same reasons is not proper.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials
available on record.
7. In the present case, the suit has been filed on 06.04.2024 and it has been
repeatedly returned. This Court, in the case of Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam
Nuclear Power Plant India Limited reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 2514, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
set out the parameters under which the scrutiny of plaints can be done at the
preliminary/pre-registration stage. Even after hearing the learned counsel on
record, no orders have been passed. Though powers are provided under Order VII,
Rule 11, CPC to reject the plaint even at the pre-registration stage, it cannot be
inordinately delayed.
8. Therefore, the docket order dated 08.07.2024 in O.S.SR.No.4445 of 2024
passed by the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside.
9. The I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to pass
orders in accordance with law, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner,
within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands Allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
11.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ksa-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ksa-2
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
