S.Chandran v. K.Saraswathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 9683 OF 2026 S.Chandran S/o. Late Subbiah, No.18/3, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, GRB Sai Nivas, Siva Garden, K.G.Bose Nagar, New Siddhi Vinayagar Kovi Street, Irugur, Coimbatore-641 402.
..Petitioner(s) Vs K.Saraswathi D/o. Late. P.Kumaravelu W/o. S.Chandran No. S3, D Block, 5th Street Jayam Kaveri Lakshmi Homes Near Bharat Petrol Bunk New Perangalathur Chengalpattu Dist Chennai 63 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 29.04.2025 passed in IA No. 3 of 2024 in OS No. 119 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.Balasubramaniam For Respondent(s):
Mr.D.Baskar
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed in IA No. 3 of 2024 in OS No. 119 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, the defendant has preferred this revision.
2. He filed an application before the trial court to return the plaint stating that the alleged recovery of money claim made by the respondent / wife was not settled, arose within Chennai jurisdiction and based on the undertaking letter dated 15.06.2023 the respondent / wife has initiated the said suit. Even assuming that the document was true and the stamp papers are purchased at Coimbatore, therefore, the jurisdiction arose only at Coimbatore not at Perungalathur where the present suit was filed. Therefore, he prays to return the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The said application was dismissed by the trial judge on hearing both sides stating that now the suit is at the stage of framing issues and jurisdiction also can be decided at the time of completion of the trial mainly with regard to the panchayath said to be held on 15.06.
2023 is under the dispute, whether the panchayath was held or not is to be proved only after the completion of the trial. Therefore, the reason assigned by the defendant was not sustainable, accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that even assuming that there was a panchayath held, based on the alleged undertaking letter dated 15.06.2023 and a bare perusal of the stamp papers would reflect that the stamp papers was purchased at Coimbatore and not at Perungalathur or Chennai. Therefore, based on that letter, the jurisdiction arose only at Coimbatore and not at Chennai. The fact also reveals that the revision petitioner / defendant not admitted the undertaking letter dated 15.06.2023, therefore, he is ready to take all defence. At this stage, for that reason the plaint cannot be returned now the suit is ripe for trial and at this stage he has come forward with application. To that effect the findings of the trial court requires no interference. Liberty is granted to the defendant to take all the defence before the trial court. The trial judge is directed to dispose of the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MTL
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
MTL To
1. The Principal District Court, Chengalpattu. AND CMP NO. 9683 OF 2026 20-04-2026