The Court held that res judicata and lack of property description are not grounds for rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The suit for permanent injunction will proceed to trial. Evidence was re-opened to ensure justice.
Evidence of P.W.1 re-opened; suit proceedings to continue; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P. No.2349 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. No.2349 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.17806 of 2021
1.P.Vadivelu 2.S.Kanniappa Naicker
.. Petitioners
vs.
Smt.Girija Balasubramaniam .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2011 dated 09.07.2021 against dismissal of the Rejection of Plaint petition filed by the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Parthasarathy For Respondent : Mr.S.Saravanakumar
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the
learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2011 dated 09.07.2021.
1/6
C.R.P. No.2349 of 2021
is an abuse of process of Court. The same issue is being litigated upon ad https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6
C.R.P. No.2349 of 2021
nauseam and therefore, the plaint requires to be rejected. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners said that since there is non-description of properties, it shows that the plaintiff is not in possession and even on that score, the plaint has to be rejected.
grounds did not fall within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C and the plaint is not liable to be rejected.
that she is in possession of the property. Whether she is in possession of the property or not is the matter, which has to be gone into only at the time of trial. Plea of res judicata and lack of pleadings are not the grounds to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The suit being one for Bare injunction, it necessarily has to go through the usual trial. However, the learned trial Judge has given a finding that the suit is
not barred by res judicata. That is not the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. At that stage, a court only takes the plaint to be true and decides 3/6
C.R.P. No.2349 of 2021
on that issue. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata or not can be decided only after the pleadings, issues, the judgment and decree in the previous suit are marked in evidence and compared with the present suit. Therefore, the finding that the suit is not barred by res judicata is vacated and it shall be decided by the Court at the time of final disposal.
that day, the learned counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioners / https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6
C.R.P. No.2349 of 2021
defendants shall cross-examine P.W.1. The cross-examination shall
commence on 29.08.2023 and completed it by 31.08.2023. He shall immediately commence his evidence on 04.09.2023 on the basis of the proof affidavit already filed.
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.08.2023
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No kak To
The Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani.
5/6
C.R.P. No.2349 of 2021
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kak
C.R.P.No.2349 of 2021
03.08.2023
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is barred by res judicata under Article 227 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Whether the rejection of plaint is justified on grounds of non-description of properties.
Whether evidence of P.W.1 should be re-opened pending the revision.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Vadivelu
S.Kanniappa Naicker
Smt.Girija Balasubramaniam
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
