Madras High CourtCRP/3793/2016dismissed

B. Vinothkumar v. Manikandan

2016-12-01Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Sasidharan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.12.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(P.D.) No.3793 of 2016 and CMP.No.19360 of 2016 1.B.Vinothkumar 2.B.Selvaraj

...Petitioners

versus 1.Manikandan 2.V.Kannan 3.E.Ruthrakoti 4.N.Pushpa 5.P.Shanthi @ APN Jayashanthi

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur in I.A.No.134 of 2016 in O.S.No.129 of 2014 dated 29.08.2016. For Petitioners : Mr.R.K.Ramiah

O R D E R

The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 2014 before the learned District Munsif, Sriperumbudur against the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5. The suit was primarily filed to declare the Sale Deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and the other consequential documents as null and void.

2. Before the Trial Court, the petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.134 of 2016 invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. According to the petitioners, the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is hopelessly barred by limitation and there is no cause of action.

3. The learned Judge was of the view that the issue raised by the petitioners require evidence and as such, the plaint cannot be axed at the threshold. The order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit contending that there was a Power of Attorney dated 06.07.2000 executed by Duraisamy Naidu. Duraisamy Naidu died on 12.09.2000. It was only after his death, the first defendant executed the sale deed in favour of the second defendant on 07.04.2003 on the basis of Power of Attorney. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs have made out a case for trial. There is no question of rejecting the plaint by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. I am therefore of the view that the Trial Court was perfectly correct in dismissing the application.

6. In the up shot, I dismiss the civil revision petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01.12.2016 Index : Yes/No svki To The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur

K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.

(svki) C.R.P.(P.D.) No.3793 of 2016 01.12.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in