[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Balamurugan vs Bala Imaya Varamaban on 22 January, 2026
CRP No. 231 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 231 of 2026 and
CMP No.1019 of 2026
Balamurugan
S/o.Varatharaja Gounder,
Thathapuram Village,
Tindivanam Taluk,
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Bala Imaya Varamaban
S/o.Balakrishnan,
No.68, Thathapuram Village,
Tindivanam Taluk
2. Balasubramaniyan
S/o.Varatharaja gounder,
NO.50, Perumal Kovil Veethi
Thathapuram Village,
Tindivanam Taluk
3. Geethalakshmi. W/o.Nagenthiran,
Thamal Village and Post,
Kanchipuram Taluk and District
4. Sarasvathi, W/o.Balaji,
Murungampakkam
Tindivanam, Tindivanam Taluk
5. Bala Gnasammantham
No.7/4, Kanniyappan street,
Periyar Pathai, Sulaimedu, Chennai
__________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:58 pm )
CRP No. 231 of 2026
6. Bala Thirunavukarasu
S/o.Balakrishnan,
No.71/7/4 Kanniyappan Street,
Periyar Pathai, Sulaimedu
Chennai
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India
to allow this CRP by setting aside the order and decretal order passed in IA
No.335/2024 in OS No.50/2019 dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Learned
Additional Sub Court Thindivanam
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.Karuppaiyamooppanar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant
seeking rejection of plaint.
2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2019
for partition against the petitioner and other respondents. Issues in the suit was
framed as early as on 12.02.2022. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed the instant
application seeking rejection of plaint, when the suit was posted for cross
examination PW1.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:58 pm )
3. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, the first respondent/plaintiff
filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2009 for partition on the file of District Munsif,
Tindivanam and the same was decreed. The said judgment was challenged by
the petitioner in an appeal in A.S.No.25 of 2012 and the same was allowed in
respect of Item Nos.1, 2, 3, 5,6 7 and 8 of the suit properties. The respondent/
plaintiff, without challenging the said judgment by way of second appeal, filed
the instant suit by including some other properties on different pleadings and
therefore, the instant suit is barred by rejudicata. It is further stated by him that
non inclusion of the properties in the earlier suit and inclusion of the said
properties in the instant suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC.
4. It is settled law that while considering the petition for rejection of
plaint, the court can consider only the plaint averments and the plaint
documents. The court is not entitled to rely on any documents produced on the
side of the defendants, while considering a petition for rejection of plaint. To
decide the question of resjudicata and the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the
court has to consider the pleadings of the respective parties in the earlier
litigation. Therefore, the question of resjudicata and the bar under Order II Rule
2 of CPC can be considered only at the time of final disposal, based on the
evidence to be let in by both the parties. Further, already, issue has been framed
with regard to the question of resjudicata as early as on 12.02.2024. Thereafter,
trial has commenced and the matter has been posted for cross examination of
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:58 pm )
PW1. After getting several adjournments, the instant application has been filed
by the petitioner/2nd defendant. Since the issues raised by the petitioner require
evidence, the same cannot be the basis for rejection of plaint. The Trial Court
rightly appreciated the legal position and dismissed the application. I do not find
any error in the impugned order to interfere the same.
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22-01-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MST
To
The Additional Sub Judge, Thindivanam.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:58 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
MST
22-01-2026
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:58 pm )
