Madras High Court
S.R.M.Packirirajan vs Minor P.U.Vijay Charan on 30 June, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7329 & 7330 of 2025
1.S.R.M.Packirirajan
2.P.Ashok Kumar ...Petitioners in both C.R.Ps.
Vs.
Minor P.U.Vijay Charan
[Minor represented through his mother and guardian M.Rajeswari @ Nisha,
W/o.Udhayakumar, Door No.22/41, Lakshmipuram 3rd Street, Madurai – 625
001.]
...Respondent in both C.R.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal orders dated
09.04.2025 made in I.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.188
of 2024, on the file of the Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Madurai and
allow the Civil Revision Petitions and direct the VI Additional District Judge to
pass orders on the application filed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 on merits.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the
orders dated 09.04.2025 made in I.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in
O.S.No.188 of 2024, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai
and allow the Civil Revision Petitions and direct the VI Additional District
Judge to pass orders on the application filed in I.A.No.2 of 2024.
2.Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the revision
petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.188 of 2024. The respondent / plaintiff
filed a suit for partition. The first respondent is the son of the second
respondent, the second respondent is the brother of the second petitioner and
son of the first petitioner. The respondent who is a minor filed a partition suit
in O.S.No.188 of 2024, in which the petitioners / defendants filed I.A.No.2 of
2024 under order VII Rule 11, for rejection of the plaint. At that time, the
respondent filed applications in I.A.No.5 of 2025 and 6 of 2025 for
re-opening I.A.No.2 of 2024, under Section 151 CPC and for receiving
additional documents under Order VII Rule 14 and the same were allowed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
his favour. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been
filed.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue in these
Civil Revision Petitions is no longer res integra. It has already been settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases, wherein it has been held that
while deciding Order VII Rule 11 petitions, the trial Court has to consider only
the plaint averments and the documents annexed therein and the defence of the
defendants need not be considered at that stage. Further, the Courts shall not
exercise the power under Order VI Rule 11, in matters that are legally barred or
frivolous. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.
4.In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied
on the following judgments:
(i) Correspondent, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs.
B.Gunashekar and others reported in 2025 (3) CTC 619;
(ii) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati
Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another in Civil Appeal No.
14807 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
(iii) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through
legal representatives and others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366;
(iv) Saleem Bhai and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557;
(v) Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and others reported in
(2020) 6 SCC 557.
5.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the
petitioners / defendants filed Order VII Rule 11 petition, in which the trial
Court heard the arguments of the petitioners alone and no opportunity was
given to the respondent to argue the case. Thereby, the respondent / plaintiff
filed the above said petitions which were allowed and the same need not be
interfered with. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of these Civil Revision
Petitions.
6.Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the following judgments:
(i) Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., Vs. Mahaveer Lunia and others
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1208;
(ii) P.Kumarakurubaran Vs. P.Narayanan and others reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 975;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
(iii) Chhotanben and another Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar
reported in (2018) 6 SCC 422.
7.Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
8.Admittedly, the respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for partition as against
his father's brother and grandfather, in which the petitioner filed a petition
under Order VII Rule 11 and the same was under consideration. At that time,
the respondent / plaintiff filed two I.As. in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2025, for
reopening and for receiving additional documents. The issue that arises for
consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether in an Order VII Rule 11
petition, the plaintiffs are entitled to mark additional documents and in this
aspect, the law is well settled.
9.A perusal of the above judgments make it clear that while entertaining
the Order VII Rule 11, the trial Court has to strictly consider only the plaint
averments and the documents annexed therein and neither the defendant's
defence nor plaintiff's defence need be looked into at the time of deciding the
Order VII Rule 11 petition. Hence, the above petitions filed for reopening and
receiving additional documents are unnecessary and unwarranted. Accordingly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024
in O.S.No.188 of 2024, dated 09.04.2025 are set aside.
10.Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions stand allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
30.06.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
To
1.The VI Additional District Judge,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
MR
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1435 & 1436 of 2025
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 05:49:42 pm )
