A.B.Farhatunissa v. M.Asharaf Ali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and C.M.P.No.24373 of 2019 A.B.Farhatunissa ... Petitioner -vs1.M.Asharaf Ali 2.M.Abdul Jabbar 3.M.Md.Iliyas 4.M.Kousar Parveen 5.A.Sumaiya Banu 6.A.Mohammed Sahel Basha 7.A.Mohammed Omar 8.A.Mohammed Siddique Basha 9.A.Mohammed Salim 10.A.Mohammed Aslam 11.A.Mohammed Ashfaque 12.S.Mumtaz Begum 13.A.Kathija Shaheem 1/7

14.A.Umma Salma 15.A.A.Juria Banu 16.A.Khairunnisa 17.A.Nasewemunnisa 18.M.Bhaskar 19.M/s.Canara Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai - 79.

20.The Authorized Officer, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Canara Bank, Spencer Tower - 11 First Floor 770A, Anna Salai Chennai.

21.M.Mehbubunnisa 22.A.Mohammed Sadiq 23.A.Mohammed Salman Sahith 24.A.Ameena Misbuka 25.A.Rafique Ahmed 26.A.Shayik Ahamed 27.A.Kizar Hussain 28.A.Thaslim Banu 29.A.Athiya Banu 30.Padmavathi 31.Santhanalakshmi 2/7

32.Senthilkumar 33.Kavitha 34.Kamalammal 35.G.Arun 36.Noorul Basar 37.A.Safina Mushkoth 38.A.Firdose Nasreen 39.A.Suheb Fahad 40.A.Rabiya Ruksana 41.A.Falak Naaz 42.A.Nadira Nusrath 43.A.Ifra Mashooda ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to direct the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.215 of 2010. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam For Respondents : Ms.Sri Ranjani for T.P.Prabakaran 1 to 5 3/7

For Respondent : Mr.D.Suresh Kumar For Respondent : Mrs.S.Hemalatha 18, 30 to 34 For Respondent : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen For Respondents : No Appearance 6 to 17, 21 to 29, 35 to 43 **********

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.215 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.

2. The revision is predicated on the ground, the suit is an abuse of process of law. The plea being the property of a partnership firm is sought to be partitioned in O.S.No.215 of 2010 leaving out the civil revision petitioner, who has share in the same. 4/7

3. Mr.Aravind Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for Sriprada Prabhakar would submit the aforesaid statement and wants this Court to strike off the plaint on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.

4. I pointed out that in case of abuse of process of law, remedy is available under Order VI Rule 16, by filing an interlocutory application in the suit, and in case the plaint does not have a cause of action, remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is available. I pointed out that the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Others v. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019)9 SCC 538 has held that where an effective remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, a revision under Article 227 should not be normally entertained. Following the said judgment, granting liberty to the petitioner to move a petition either under Order VI Rule 16 or under Order VII Rule 11, this revision is dismissed. 5/7

5. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.3711 of 2019 is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.24373 of 2019 is closed. 26.09.2023 rna/shl Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To The Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.

6/7

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J, rna/shl and C.M.P.No.24373 of 2019 26.09.2023 7/7