Dismissed

Lakshmanaperumal v. Mariammal

Madras HC3 Aug 2023CRP(MD)/2412/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an Order 7 Rule 11 application. The revision was rejected as the plaint averments did not disclose grounds for rejection under the rule. The court directed trial court disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Trial Judge directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

Lakshmanaperumal Vs Mariammal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018 and CMP(MD)No.10770 of 2018

Lakshmanapermal

... Petitioner

1.Mariammal 2.Mariammal 3.Mariappan 4.Krishnammal

¶11

5.Seeniammal

¶12

....Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 14.08.2018 in I.A. No. 55 of 2018 in O.S. No. 69 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja For Respondents : Mr.S.Ponsenthilkumaresan

¶15

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

To set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 14.08.2018 passed in I.A.No. 55 of 2018 in O.S. No. 69 of 2017 passed by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti, the revision petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

¶19

2.The petitioner is the petitioner/defendant and the respondents are the respondents/plaintiffs before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigative status in the suit.

¶20

3.The brief facts, which give rise for filing the instant civil revision petition are as follows:

¶21

(i)The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. When the suit was pending, the petitioner/defendant has moved a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, under the following ground that the suit is barred by limitation, suit is under valued and for improper valuation and on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction;

¶22

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018

¶24

(ii)The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that she has purchased the suit property from one Gurunatha Nadar in the year 2001 and after that, for about 15 years, he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, as per Articles 64 and 65 of Limitation Act, the very suit is barred by limitation. In respect of other aspects, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has also put up concrete structure in the suit property, which costs around Rs.10 lakhs. However, the suit has been under valued. Therefore, on the ground of under valuation and on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaint has to be rejected;

¶25

respondents/plaintiffs would submit that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, only the plaint averments and documents have to be considered.

¶26

4.I have given my anxious consideration to either side

¶27

submission.

¶28

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018

¶30

5.The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has rightly stated that according to frame work under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to go by the plaint averments and cannot rely upon any other materials, other than plaint and plaint documents.

¶31

6.On harmonious reading of the plaint, this Court could not find any pleadings so as to make the suit, to become barred by limitation. In respect of valuation of suit, from the plaint averments, this Court could not find any value for the alleged concrete structure in the suit property.

¶32

7.As discussed hereinabove, it is seen that when an application is being adjudicated under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court shall presume the plaint averments to be true. In such course if any of the ground enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code emerges from the pleadings of plaint and plaint documents, then only the plaint can be rejected. In this case, this Court could not find out any ground under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code from the pleadings of plaint and plaint documents. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below.

¶33

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018

¶35

8.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands

¶36

dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

9.Considering the pendency of suit since from the year 2017, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to co-operate with the trial for speedy disposal.

¶38

03.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PNM

¶39

¶40

1.The District Munsif, Kovilpatti.

¶41

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

¶42

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018

¶44

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.,

¶45

PNM

¶46

ORDER IN C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 2412 of 2018 and CMP(MD)No.10770 of 2018

¶47

03.08.2023

¶48

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Lakshmanaperumal v. Mariammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanaperumal v. Mariammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvaraj, Vs Dr.J.Cyril Selvaraj

Bhovas, S/O.George, NO.34/40C Vs Johndurai

Kaliamoorthy, Vs S.Parvathy

V.Sankar@Sankarasubbu Vs K.L.R.Balasingh

V.Dharmarajan, Vs K.Sonai, S/o.Karuppanan, Ambalam

Perumal Vs Arumugathammal