Dismissed

Muthukumar v. Vimalan

Madras HC9 Oct 2023CRP(MD)/2578/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 seeking to strike off a suit for specific performance. The court held that the petitioner must approach the trial court via Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application first, as Article 227 is not an appropriate remedy when an alternative one exists.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before trial court.

Muthukumar Vs Vimalan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.13379 of 2023

Muthukumar

... Petitioner/

Defendant

Vs.

Vimalan ... Respondent/ Plaintiff

¶14

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2023 on the file of learned Sub Court, Eraniel by allowing the above said Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Civil Revision petition has been filed seeking orders to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.59 of 2023, pending on the file of the Sub Court, Eraniel.

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2023

¶21

The respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2023 for specific performance on the basis of the oral agreement alleged to have been entered into between the revision petitioner and the respondent on 12.02.2023 and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, though the respondent was ready and willing to pay the amount, the revision petitioner has failed to execute the sale deed and hence, he was constrained to file the above suit for specific performance.

¶22

The main contention of the revision petitioner is that there is a statutory bar for filing the suit. If that be so, it is a ground for filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint before the trial Court.

¶23

Without approaching the trial Court for rejection of the plaint, the revision petitioner has chosen to approach this Court directly by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the alternative remedy is available to the revision petitioner, the question of invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not arise at all. Hence, this Court concludes that the revision is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2023

¶26

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However,

¶27

the revision petitioner is at liberty to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. before the concerned Court for rejection of the plaint. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶28

09.10.2023

¶29

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm

¶30

¶31

The Sub Court, Eraniel.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2023

¶35

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶36

csm

¶37

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.13379 of 2023

¶38

Dated : 09.10.2023

¶39

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

Muthukumar v. Vimalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar v. Vimalan

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

Gopal Naicker (died) 1. Dhanammal, Vs Thirumayammal

Felix Jerome Vs Arockiya Preethy

R.Remigius Jude, Vs M.Anusthika

Samikannu, Vs Thangaraj

P.Shajahan Vs a.Victor mature(Died) 1. M.Maria Roach Jayabai

E.Nagalingam Vs S.Sundari