Defendants sought rejection of the plaint in a suit alleging forged release documents, relying on a quashed criminal case and an earlier suit. The High Court held that plaint averments disclose a cause of action and criminal findings do not bind civil courts; revision dismissed.
No relief granted; revision dismissed, connected miscellaneous petition closed, 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.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024 & C.M.P.No.17862 of 2024
1.Selvaraj
2.Raja @ Venkatesan
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.Chief Secretary, Commissioner / Commercial Tax, Chepauk, Chennai.
2.Joint Commissioner, Business Taxation, Trichy.
3.Deputy Commissioner, Business Taxation, Ariyalur.
4.Commissioner / Central Government & Freight & Service Tax Department, Trichy.
1/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
5.State Business Tax Officer, Business Tax Department, Perambalur.
6.Krishnamoorthy ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2022 in O.S.No.156 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Perambalur.
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Poornima For Respondents : Mr. A.Anandan 1 to 3 and 5 Government Advocate.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the Additional District Munsif, Perambalur in I.A.No.8 of 2022 in O.S.No.156 of 2020. The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.156 of 2020
are the civil revision petitioners.
2/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
“1/jhth brhj;jpid thjpnah. mtuJ Ml;fnsh. Vb$z;Lfnsh. thupRfnsh mDgtk; bra;tij. 1 Kjy; 6 gpujpthjpfnsh. mtu;fsJ Ml;fnsh. Vb$z;Lfnsh. thupRfnsh. Vf;fhyj;jpYk;. ve;j KiwapYk;. thjp. jhth brhj;jpy; cs;ns EiHe;J tpahghuk; bra;tjw;F jila[k;. ,il";rYk; bra;ahky; ,Uf;Fk; bghUl;L Xu; epue;ju jil cj;jut[ tH';f ntz;oa[k;/
2/jhth brhj;J bghUj;J. 7 Kjy; 11 gpujpthjpfs; j';fsJ mYtyf Mtz';fspy; Vw;fdnt eilKiwapy; cs;s nf/fhspbrl;oahu; & rd;!; ghj;jpuf;fil vd up$p!;lu; bra;Jk;. mjpy; thjpf;F 1-2 g';F cupikahsu; vd;W. midj;J Mtz';fspYk;. gjpt[ bra;Jk;. jtWjyhf 5. 6 gpujpthjpfis g';Fjhuuhf epakdk; bra;jjpid uj;J bra;a xU braYWj;Jf;fl;lis gupfhuk; tH';f btz;oa[k;/
3/thjpf;F jhth brhj;jpy; ,Ue;J fpilf;f ntz;oa yhg g';fPl;L bjhifapid. fzf;fPL bra;J 1. 2 gpujpthjpfs; bfhLf;f
3/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
cj;jutpl;Lk;/
4/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
filed a detailed counter, stating that the property belongs to one Kali Chettiyar, in whose name the trade licence had been obtained, and that the partnership firm was carried on in the name of "Kali Chettiyar and sons" . The plaintiff would state that suppressing his half share in the suit property, the petitioners had filed O.S.No.150 of 2016. The plaintiff would plead that the parties in O.S.No.150 of 2016 and the parties in this suit are completely different.
5/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
documents have been prepared by the defendants and had been produced before the Commercial Tax Officer, where the documents were subsequently mutated.
8.After considering the arguments on both sides, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this Civil Revision petition.
of the Trial Court in I.A.No.383 of 2017. She would rely upon the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.1597 of 2018 dated 08.07.2019, where the dismissal of application for rejection of the plaint had been confirmed by this Court. She would plead that in the light of the Judgement passed in Crl.O.P.No.23752 of 2018, wherein this Court had returned a finding that the document dated 05.02.1992 is not forged document, she would argue that the present application ought not to have been dismissed.
6/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
7/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
20.08.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
8/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
To
The Additional District Munsif, Perambalur.
9/10
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kan
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3331 of 2024
20.08.2024
10/10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaint could be rejected on the ground that a release deed dated 05.02.1992 and findings in a quashed criminal proceeding show no cause of action.
Selvaraj
Raja @ Venkatesan
Chief Secretary, Commissioner / Commercial Tax, Chepauk, Chennai
Joint Commissioner, Business Taxation, Trichy
Deputy Commissioner, Business Taxation, Ariyalur
Krishnamoorthy
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
