← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/117/2016dismissed

Mathiazhagan v. Sambavaidyanathan

2016-02-22Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.Velumani2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P(MD)No.117 of 2016 (PD) Mathiazhagan .. Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

Sambavaidyanathan .. Respondent/Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order, dated 03.12.2015 returning the plaint in unnumbered O.S.(SR) No.2379 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pabanasam and consequently direct the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam to number the unnumbered O.S.(SR) No.2379 of 2015 on his file and to dispose the same on merits accordance to law within the stipulated time.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer

ORDER

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.(SR)No.2379 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pabanasam for specific performance and for temporary injunction against the respondent. The said plaint was returned raising a query with regard to maintainability of the suit without seeking the relief of specific performance. The petitioner amended the plaint by including the relief of specific performance. Subsequently, the suit was returned with regard to furnishing of Survey Number and other particulars. The petitioner filed patta and complied with and represented the plaint. Again it was returned on the ground that the property stands in the name of one Sridhar and the suit is filed against the Sambavaithianathan without impleading the said Sridhar.

The petitioner represented the plaint stating that Sambavaithianathan is the eldest male member of the family and he is only looking after the property on behalf of Sridhar. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the learned Judge returned the plaint. Against that return, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.

plaint was returned raising objection on merit. A plaint can be returned only as per the Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.

3.I have heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and carefully perused the entire materials on record and also considered various return made by the learned Judge and explanation given by the counsel for the petitioner in complying with the said returns.

4. The main objection is that the property stands in the name of one Sridhar and without making him as defendant, the suit is not maintainable. The petitioner has not filed any material to show that the defendant is acted on behalf of the said Sridhar and Sambavaithiyanathan is looking after the property on behalf of the Sridhar and the property is a joint family property. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court can direct the plaintiff to implead the said Sridhar as defendant and undertook to implead the said Sridhar is untenable. 5.In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to return the original plaint to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to make the said Sridhar as a party defendant and re-present the plaint complying with the defects pointed out by the learned Judge. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Co.Dept) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar am To The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam.

Copy to :

The Section Officer, E.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1CC t Mr.T.A.Ebenezer Advocate Sr.No.10103 GJM/SKS/RR/8.3.16-2p-4C C.R.P(MD)No.117 of 2016(PD) 22.02.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/