Allowed

N. Amutha v. Jason Kennedy

Madras HC13 Nov 2024CRP(MD)/172/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that the trial court erred by rejecting the plaint at the scrutinization stage and assessing the truthfulness of documents. The High Court ruled that such factual disputes require a full trial. It allowed the revision petition, set aside the rejection, and directed the trial court to number the suit for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the plaint was set aside and the trial court is directed to number the suit and conclude it expeditiously.

N. Amutha Vs Jason Kennedy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 13.11.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶5

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.172 of 2020

¶6

1.N.Amutha 2.K.Aarthy

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

vs.

¶9

Jason Kennedy ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.(SR)No.10687 of 21-08-2019 dated 04.10.2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruchirapalli.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Ponniah For Respondent :Mr.B.Jannath Ahmed @ B.Janarth Kumar *****

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in O.S.S,R.No.10687 of 2021, dated 04.10.2019.

¶14

________________ Page 1 of 23_

Heads	Permissible during scrutiny of plaint	Not permissible
Cause title and form of pleading (Order VI Rule 3)	Yes. Can be verified if there is a substantial compliance of Appendix A.
Parties to suit Order VII Rule 1 (a) to (b) and Rule 4	Yes. Required to the extent required, and if the suit is laid in a representative capacity
Maintainability (cause of action) Sec.9 & Order VII Rule 1(e)	Yes. Only to the extent of ascertaining if the plaintiff has a legally recongised or enforceable right on a plain reading of the plaint, and no more.	?Sufficiency adequacy of plead cannot be gone i Hence grounds fraud as in Order Rule 4 CPC cannot insisted. ?Proof of of the allegations the plaint should be sought. ?Merits the matter correctness of pleadings cannot gone into.	or ing nto. of VI be any in not of or the be

Maintainability (Jurisdiction) Sec.9 CPC	?If the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is barred in granting the relief sought by any statute. ?Caution must be exercised before returning a plaint. The entire plaint, the cause of action and the relief sought must be understood as are stated or disclosed in the plaint alone need to be considered. ?The statutory provision barring the institution of the civil suit or excluding the civil court’s inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the civil dispute must be strictly under stood.
Maintainability (Limitation)	Yes. Where a suit is ex facie barred by limitation. Only the allegation in the plaint should be the basis. However, where the plaintiff pleads exemption from the law of limitation under Order VII Rule 6, this should be left to be tested post registration of the suit at the appropriate stage.	Newer or clarificatory material or proof of any fact pertaining to limitation should not be insisted.
Maintainability Territorial and Pecuniary jurisdiction Order Sec.15 to 21 r/w Order VII Rule 1(f)	Yes
Money suits Order VII Rule 2	If precise amount is stated

Description of	Yes	However, sufficiency of
Property Order VII Rule 3		the description cannot be gone into. Again, if there is any variance of extent or boundary description with any title deed, even that may be formally notified for a possible typographical or clerical mistake, but if any explanation is offered justifying the extent stated, the plaint has to be registered. This is because, looking for proof and correctness of pleadings is not contemplated at the stage when the suit is registered.
Relief Order VII Rule 7 and 8	Yes, but limited to ascertaining if a relief at all is sought	Appropriateness or suitability of the relief sought cannot be gone into. This is not Court’s job. Seeking the relief is the prerogative of the plaintiff. The fact that the Court may not grant it ultimately is a matter for adjudication, and is part of its judicial act and not part of its ministerial act of numbering the plaint. [See AIR 1942 Mad 446]

Documents	If enclosed can be verified	Production of the
	with the list provided in the plaint	documents cannot be insisted. It needs to be
		realised that, given the
		level of poverty and
		illiteracy in this country it cannot be expected that every one will possess all the
		documents all the time,
Documents		anticipating the
		possibility of laying a
		suit 24 x 7. No law
		compels any person to
		possess all the
		documents all the time
		either. A cause of
		action for the suit
		invariably arises at a
		time convenient to the
		defendant, but it is the
		plaintiff who has to
		approach the Court to protect his/her right.
		All that the plaintiff
		therefore needs is only a cause of action and
		not proof of it when he
		enters the courtsystem. This apart After all
		under Order VII Rule
		14(3) CPC documents,
		including title
		documents can be
		produced subsequently.
		Production of
		documents may be
		relevant for
		considering the
		granting of
		interim relief, but is
		not mandatory for

Signing the	Yes
plaint Order VI Rule 14
Verification of	Yes
plaint Order VI Rule 15
Accompanying	1. Copy of plaint and
papers	affidavit. 2. Vakalath. 3.Any
	application for leave to sue 4. Process along with copies of plaint.(Plaint cannot be returned for not providing it since under Order VII Rule 9, they have to be provided only after the suit is
	numbered and the Court
	orders summons to the
	defendant) 5.Any other applications with affidavit
Others	Any formal typographical or
	clerical error apparent on
	the face. Any doubt as to
	pecuniary or territorial
	jurisdiction. This is
	consistent with Order VII Rule 1(a) CPC

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Arjunan Vs Mariappan(Died), Subramanian

Ponnayyan, Vs Nadankutty Nadar @ Nathan Kutty (Died)

Ramayee Vs Begum Jan

K.Mathivanan Vs Veerachamy

The Deputy Registrar of Vs M.Rajendran

G.Arputham Vs Mary Jeya