Agilandeswari v. J.Dinakaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.06.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and CMP.No.14251 of 2023 1.Agilandeswari 2.V.C.Rameswaramurugan ... Petitioners Vs 1.J.Dinakaran M/s.J.D.Automobiles and Allied Service Private Limited 90, Madhavaram High Road Perambur, Chennai - 600 011.

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Pulianthope Zone Chennai - 600 012.

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Peravalur Zone 4.The Inspector of Police K-1, Sembium Police Station Perambur, Sembium Chennai - 600 011.

... Respondents 1/6

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the suit in O.S.No.6094 of 2018 on the file of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, by allowing this civil revision petition by exercising the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.R.M. Pradeepan for Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj for R1

ORDER

This revision is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 to strike off the suit in O.S.No.6094 of 2018 pending on the file of XX Assistant City Civil Court,

2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff had laid the suit in O.S.No.6094 of 2018 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking permanent injunction against the revision petitioners (defendants 1 & 2) from interfering with his peaceful possession and also not to harass him to pay Rs.75.0 lakhs, which the plaintiff had obtained from the first defendant on executing a pronote. It is the case of the revision petitioners/defendants that 2/6

the plaintiff had repaid the said amount and settled the dispute out of Court. Since no cause of action survives in keeping the suit pending, the revision petitioners/defendants are before this Court seeking leave to strike off the suit.

3. Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.R.M.Pradeepan for the first respondent.

4. Mr.N.Manoharan would contend that the suit has become infructuous and by invoking the principle laid down in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd Vs Machado Brothers and others, (2004) 11 SCC 168, this Court should dismiss the suit.

5. The Hon'ble Justice Mr.N.Santosh Hedge as His Lordship then was, has held that it is always open to the defendants to take out an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code before the learned Trial Judge and seek for dismissal of the suit, if the suit has become infructuous. Applying the law laid down by the learned Judge to the facts of the present case, it is always open to the defendants 1 and 2 to file an application under 3/6

Section 151 CPC to strike off the plaint stating that subsequent to the presentation of the suit, the parties had settled the matter, and therefore nothing remains for further adjudication. If such an application is taken out, the plaintiff/respondent always have a right to file a counter and bring forth before the Trial Court the facts which might throw light on the prayer that has been made by the defendants 1 and 2.

6. When such a course of action is available to the defendants 1 and 2 before the Trial Court, I am not inclined to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the suit as infructuous. This Court has jurisdiction to warrant interference and can reverse the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, only if it is erroneous. Granting liberty to the revision petitioners/defendants 1 & 2 to file an application before the Trial Court, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.06.2024 Index:Yes/No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds 4/6

To:

1.The Judge XX Assistant City Civil Court 2.The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Chennai.

5/6

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

ds 03.06.2024 6/6