← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1126/2014dismissed

K.Kamaraj v. Kamurathinam

2021-07-16Honourable Mr Justice A.A.Nakkiran2 pages

CRP(MD)No.1126 of 2014 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16.07.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN C.R.P(MD)No.1126 of 2014 M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014 K.Kamaraj

...Petitioner

Vs.

Kamurathinam

...Respondent

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records in pursuant to the order and decreetal order dated 24.09.2013 in IA.No.815 of 2013 in OS.No.41 of 2013 passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Sivagangai and to set aside the same by allowing this civil revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathi For Respondent : No appearance

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 24.09.2013 in IA.No.815 of 2013 in OS.No.41 of 2013, passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the revision petitioner is the first defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration. In the suit, the petitioner has filed the above application, to reject the plaint. Since the said application was dismissed, by the impugned order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent herein has already filed a suit in OS.No.1132 of 1992 for partition and it was dismissed on 22.08.2005, wherein the settlement deed, dated 12.04.1950, was held to be not acted upon and the appeal filed as against the same, in AS.No.14 of 2007 was also dismissed and hence, the present suit is nothing but a abuse of process of this Court. He would further submit that since in the earlier suit, the settlement deed dated 12.04.1950 relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff was decided as not acted upon, the present suit based on the said deed is not at all maintainable and hence, he would pray for setting aside the impugned order. 4.This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also carefully perused the materials placed on record. Though the name https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRP(MD)No.1126 of 2014 of the respondent is printed in the cause list, the respondent has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. 5.The ground raised by the Petitioner is that the settlement deed, which is the subject matter of the present suit, was already decided in the earlier suit and hence, the present plaint is to be rejected. The copies of the judgement and decree made in the earlier suit in OS.No.1132 of 1992 and AS.No.14 of 2007 have been filed before this Court.

6.Under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, the court is required only to look at the averments made in the plaint of the present suit for cause of action. The plaint by itself must disclose that the suit is barred by law. A plaint should not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC at the initial stage without proper enquiry. However, as per Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, if the Plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it should be rejected. A Plaint would be read as a whole and the merits of the case are not to be considered at this stage. 7.In this case, on perusal of the pleadings of the present plaint, this court find that the averments made in the plaint disclose a cause of auction and is unable to find any of the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

Hence, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly dismissed the application to reject the plaint, by the impugned order, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 8.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) cp/msa Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

1.The District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

C.R.P(MD)No.1126 of 2014 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014 16.07.2021 MGJ(08.12.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2