Madras High Court
Arun Malhotra vs M/S Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt Ltd on 17 June, 2025
C.R.P.No.1418 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :17.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.1418 of 2024 and CMP No.7579 of 2024
1.Arun Malhotra
2.Shikha Malhotra
3.Harsh Malhotra
4. M/s Satya Surendra Developers
A Partnership Firm,
Rep by its Managing Partner Harsh Malhotra,
No.240, Zone – 1, M.P.Nagar,
Bhopal-462011, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioners
vs
1.M/s RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES PVT LTD.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
V.Jaggannathan,
17/35, 2nd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai-600 020.
Now changed to:14/67, 3rd Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020.
2. The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar of Registration,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
3. The Joint Sub Registrar-I,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
C.R.P.No.1418 of 2024
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Civil Procedure
Code against the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.4 of
2023 in O.S.No.3300 of 2023 on the file of V Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.Prahalad K.Bhat
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal
Govt.Advocate
For R.2 and R.3
R.1 – No appearance
ORDER
The petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed for permanent
injunction by the first respondent herein in O.S.No.3300 of 2023 before the
V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The said suit has been filed by the first respondent as against the
official respondents 2 and 3/ defendants 1 and 2 and private defendants 3 to
5 /revision petitioners herein. The relief sought for in the suit is as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that this Honourable
Court may be pleased to pass a Judgment and
Decree against the Defendants 1 and 2 not to
entertain any documents with reference to the
suit schedule property from the Defendants 4 to 6
or any other persons claiming through or under
them till the investigations of Police are over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
without notice to the Plaintiff and pass such
further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.”
3. The first respondent/plaintiff despite service of notice in the above
revision, has not come forward either in person or through counsel.
Mr.D.Gopal, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the official
respondents/respondents 2 and 3 and the first respondent is called absent and
set exparte. I have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would take me through
the plaint averments and allegations and more so, the relief sought for by the
first respondent in the suit in O.S.No.3300 of 2023. Learned counsel would
contend that the first respondent/plaintiff did not have any interest in the suit
property, in respect of which, the third defendant, who is the first petitioner
in this revision, as duly constituted power of attorney agent from the lawful
owners entered into joint venture agreement with the first
respondent/plaintiff. Learned counsel would state that there is absolutely no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
cause of action for filing the suit for seeking the relief as prayed for in the
said suit.
5. Learned counsel would also invite my attention to the decision of
this Court in Ramiah Asari vs Tmt.Kurshad Begaum and another reported
in 1999 (I) CTC 600. Learned counsel for the petitioner would challenge the
findings of the trial Court, dismissing the application filed under Order VII
Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code on the ground that triable issues arise for
consideration and a case has not been made out under Order VII Rule 11 of
Civil Procedure Code and that suit has to be necessarily tried on merits.
6. It is seen from the plaint averments and allegations that the plaintiff
has not filed any suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement of
sale with the third defendant, who is only the authorised agent, which,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is for consideration.
Learned counsel states that the agreement between the original owners and
the third defendant is coupled with interest and only in order to promote the
property, a joint venture agreement was entered into by the third defendant
with the plaintiff and no relief has been sought for under the Specific Relief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
Act as on date. However, the plaintiff has chosen to file a suit for bare
injunction to restrain the defendants who themselves are not true owners.
Further, when the plaintiff has given up his substantial right to seek for
specific performance, it will not open to the plaintiff to seek a bare
injunction relief to restrain registration of documents which clearly impedes
the right, title and enjoyment of the lawful owners of the subject property.
7. This Court in Ramiah Asari's case has held that when the plaintiff
comes to court seeking relief and it is seen that the plaintiff has no cause of
action for instituting the suit or locus standi for filing the same, the plaint
will have to be necessarily rejected. This Court relied on the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Modi vs K.N.Modi reported in1998(3) SCC
573, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the phrase “ abuse of
process of court” held that the Court has to prevent improper use of its
machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from
being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation.
8. In the light of the above discussions, when the first
respondent/plaintiff has precluded himself from seeking larger relief of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
specific performance, by filing a suit for bare injunction and admittedly not
taking leave of the Court under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code and
even de hors such leave, no suit has been filed within the period of
limitation, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction, that too
against the Agent and Developers who had entered into an agreement with
the lawful owners of the suit property.
9. Moreover, the relief sought for in the plaint cannot be granted as
the true owners are not even made parties to the suit and defendants 4 to 6
who themselves are agreement holders and the third defendant is only a
power agent coupled with interest.
10. In the light of the above, applying the ratio laid down by this Court
in Ramiah Asari vs Tmt.Kurshad Begaum and another reported in 1999
(I) Ctc 600, I find that the plaintiff has no interest in the suit property and no
cause of action is available for instituting suit for the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for. The suit does not disclose a cause of action and the
trial court fell in error in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule
11 of Civil Procedure Code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
11. In the result, the order passed in I.A.No.04 of 2023 in
O.S.No.3300 of 2023 dated 16.10.2023 is set aside and the plaint in
O.S.No.3300 of 2023 is rejected and the civil revision petition is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.06.2025
sr
Index:yes/no
Website:yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.,J.
sr
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 04:57:06 pm )
