The High Court dismissed the original side appeal challenging the Single Judge's order rejecting a plaint application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, finding no error as the cause of action and subject matter differed from the prior suit.
The original side appeal was dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the pending suit within six months.
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.
OSA.No.152/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
OSA.No.152/2024 & CMP.No.18913/2024
Sankari Narayanan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Dhanalakshmi 2.R.Sreedhar 3.Premalatha ... Respondents
Prayer : Original Side Appeal filed under 36 Rule 2 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.04.2024 in A.No.739/2017 in CS.No.859/2016 and allow the appeal thereby reject the plaint in CS.No.859/2016.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Srikanth for Mr.K.Elangoo For R2 : Mr.D.S.Ramesh
1
OSA.No.152/2024
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
2
OSA.No.152/2024
the 18
the 18th Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for declaration in respect of the very same property comprised in S.No.28/1. It is the contention of the appellant that the father of the respondents originally filed a suit in OS.No.8569/1972 for injunction and the same was dismissed. It was thereafter the father of respondents filed another suit in OS.No.9095/1984 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in the previous suit in OS.No.8569/1972. It is the further case of the appellant that the suit property in OS.No.9095/1984 is an extent of 18 cents comprised in TS.No.28/1 in Ayanavaram Village and that the suit is barred by principles of res judicata.
(5)It is admitted that the suit in OS.No.9095/1984 was filed by the father of respondents herein. The said suit was dismissed and an appeal suit was filed by the father of the respondents in AS.No.401/2003. A Second Appeal was also filed by him as against the judgment and decree in AS.No.401/2003 before this Court and the Second Appeal in SA.No.137/2005 was also dismissed. Despite these admitted facts, the learned Judge considered the judgment and decree that was passed in OS.No.9095/1984. It is seen that the suit in OS.No.1995/1984 and the
3
OSA.No.152/2024
4
OSA.No.152/2024
5
OSA.No.152/2024
elaborate this judgment again referring to various precedents.
hence, this Original Side Appeal stands dismissed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
03.09.2024
AP
Internet : Yes
6
OSA.No.152/2024
S.S. SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
AP
OSA.No.152/2024
7
OSA.No.152/2024
03.09.2024
8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Original Side Appeal filed against the dismissal of the rejection of plaint application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC merits any interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sankari Narayanan
1.Dhanalakshmi
2.R.Sreedhar
3.Premalatha
S.S. SUNDAR
K.RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
