Madras High Court
Ramakanth Sharma vs Varadha Babu Alias V.Babu on 20 September, 2024
C.R.P.(PD).No.3783 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3783 of 2024
1. Ramakanth Sharma
2. Lalith Sharma
3. Sunil Sharma
4. Aarthi Sharma
5. Poonam Sharma .. Petitioners
Versus
1. Varadha Babu alias V.Babu
2. Shanthi
3. D.Chinnapa
4. Canara Bank Limited,
Having its branch office at
No.27, Sivan Koil South Mada
Street, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.
Represented by its Branch Manager
5. G.Mahalakshmi
6. G.Kannan .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the impugned docket order, dated 27.08.2024 in
O.S.SR.No.1815 of 2024 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvottiyur
and direct the learned Sub Judge to number the O.S. Filing No.1815 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.R.P.(PD).No.3783 of 2024
2024, pending on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvottiyur within a timeline
to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Suraj
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed due to the refusal of the learned
Sub-Judge at Thiruvottiyur to number O.S.SR.No.1815 of 2024.
2. The plaintiffs are the civil revision petitioners. They presented
O.S.SR.No.1815 of 2024 for the purpose of declaration that several
registered deeds are null and void and for the relief of permanent injunction.
Even at the time of numbering, the learned Judge directed the plaintiffs to
give details of title and hence, has repeatedly returned the plaint. In terms
of the Order VI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would be sufficient
if the documents, which are material, are mentioned in the plaint and to state
the effect thereof as briefly as possible. There is no necessity to extract the
whole or any part thereof for the purpose of numbering the plaint.
3. Mr.C.Suraj, learned Counsel for the civil revision petitioners would
state that all the title deeds and the documents, on which he is relying upon,
the certified copies thereof, will be presented at the time of trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Insofar as the pleading for plot Nos.56, 57 and 58 are concerned,
the same are found in page No.12 to page No.17 of the plaint. At the stage
of numbering, the Court need not don on itself the role of a defendant. If
the pleadings are referable to the documents and the documents or copies
thereof have been filed, that would be sufficient compliance. This position
of law is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Selvaraj Vs.
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited represented through its
Project Director, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2514.
5. In the light of the above judgment, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. The impugned docket order, dated 27.08.2024 in O.S.SR.No.1815
of 2024 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Thiruvottiyur is set aside. The
learned Judge shall number O.S.SR.No.1815 of 2024, if it is otherwise in
order and issue summons to the defendants. The learned Sub-Judge is
requested to act on a web copy of this order and not insist on production of
a certified copy of the order. No costs.
20.09.2024
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
Note:- Registry is directed to return the original plaint
to the petitioners after obtaining usual endorsement.
To
The Sub Judge,
Thiruvottiyur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
grs
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
