Dismissed¶40

M. Miyakani and 8 Others v. a. Abdul Rahman

Madras HC6 Feb 2025A/7960/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; maintainability of application to reject plaint; leave to sue; revocation of leave to sue; A. No. 2668 of 2012; territorial jurisdiction; cause of action; Section 20 and Section 20(c) CPC; defendants residing at Bathalagundu/Dindigul; cause of action at Chennai; defamation; damages of Rs. 1 crore; permanent injunction; Wakf Board order dated 24.02.2011; President of Committee of Management of Jamma Periya Pallivasal; complaints of maladministration; suit at trial stage; delay of two years; Madras High Court; A. No. 7960 of 2014 in C.S. No. 418 of 2012; A.A. Nakkiran, J.; application dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the applicants; the plaint in C.S. No. 418 of 2012 was not rejected and the application was dismissed with no costs. ¶40

M. Miyakani and 8 Others Vs a. Abdul Rahman — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the applicants; the plaint in C.S. No. 418 of 2012 was not rejected and the application was dismissed with no costs.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the application (A. No. 7960 of 2014) to reject the plaint in C.S. No. 418 of 2012 is maintainable, given that the earlier order granting leave to sue (A. No. 2668 of 2012, allowed on 29.06.2012) was never revoked. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

As the applicants/defendants did not file any application to revoke the order granting leave to sue, their present application to reject the plaint is not maintainable in law.

¶33-34

Ratio / Principle

A reading of the plaint very clearly discloses the cause of action.

¶35-36

Key takeaways

The cause-of-action para in the plaint is very clear on the territorial jurisdiction.ratio¶35-36
The applicants came forward with the application to reject the plaint with a delay of two years after the suit filed in 2012; in such circumstances the application was liable to be dismissed.ratio¶38-39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (A.A. Nakkiran, J.) dismissed A. No. 7960 of 2014, by which the defendants/applicants led by M. Miyakani sought rejection of the plaint in C.S. No. 418 of 2012 — a suit by A. Abdul Rahman for recovery of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages and a permanent injunction restraining defamatory allegations against him. The plaintiff had earlier obtained leave to sue in A. No. 2668 of 2012, allowed on 29.06.2012 on the basis that the cause of action arose at Chennai although the defendants resided at Bathalagundu (Dindigul district). The Court held that, without filing an application to revoke the order granting leave to sue, the application to reject the plaint was not maintainable in law; a reading of the plaint clearly disclosed the cause of action, and the cause-of-action para was very clear on the territorial jurisdiction. The Court also noted the delay of two years in moving the application after the 2012 suit. Application dismissed; no costs.

¶1

A NO. 7960 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: -01-2025

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
A No. 7960 of 2014 in
CS No. 418 of 2012
M. Miyakani And 8 Others 11-3-16venkatapatty St Batlagundu 624 202 Dindigul Dist. and 8 Others Applicant(s) Vs A. Abdul Rahman 10 Savarimuthu Lane Pudupet Chennai 2
Respondent(s) CS No. 418 of 2012
A. Abdul Rahman 10 Savarimuthu Lane Pudupet Chennai 2 Plaintiff(s)
Vs M. Miyakani (deceased) 11-3-16venkatapatty St Batlagundu 624 202 Dindigul Dist. and 11 Others
Defendant(s) A No. 7960 of 2014
For Applicant(s): M/s. R. Balakrishnan D. Rajasekar Applicant 1 - M. Miyakani Applicant 2 - S Nasarullah Applicant 3 - M.A. Peer Mohammed Applicant 4 - S Habib Raja
Applicant 5 - M. Abdul Kapoor (died)
Applicant 6 - M.S. Thameem Ansari https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶4

Applicant 7 - K Jaffer Sait Applicant 8 - P Syed Junaid Applicant 9 - A Abdul Rahman Applicant Name Printed As Per B/o Dt:30/08/2024

¶5

For Respondent(s):

¶6

M/s.T.Velumani For M/s.G.RM.Palaniappan

¶7

ORDER

¶8

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.)

¶9

This application is filed to reject the plaint in C.S No.418 of 2012.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submitted that the respondent/plaintiff

¶11

has filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages and for

¶12

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making defamatory allegations against

¶13

him before the general public, any forum, authority or agency. The Wakf Board by its order

¶14

dated 24.02.2011 appointed the respondent/plaintiff as the President of the Committee of

¶15

Management of Jamma Periya Pallivasal. Since the plaintiff had committed mal

¶16

administration, the defendants have given complaint to the higher authorities for initiating

¶17

action against the respondent/plaintiff for his mall administration and removing him from the

¶18

post of President of Adhoc Committee. Hence the respondent/plaintiff has filed the above

¶19

suit. The suit itself is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that no cause of action arose for filing the above suit. This Court has no jurisdiction to try the

¶21

above suit since all the defendants are residing at Bathalagundu within the jurisdiction of District Munsif's Court, Nilakottai, Dindhugal District. The alleged complaints, representations to the higher authorities were mad at Bathlagundu only. Hence, he prays to reject the plaint in C.S No.418 of 2012.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the present application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The respondent/plaintiff filed Application No.2668 of 2012 seeking leave to sue to file the above suit within the jurisdiction of this Court, though the applicants/defendants reside outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the cause of action

¶23

arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court and the said application was allowed by this Court on 29.06.2012 granting leave to sue against the applicants/defendants in the above

¶24

suit. The plain reading of the plaint very clearly discloses the cause of action and the cause of action para is very clear on the territorial jurisdiction. Without filing an application to revoke the leave to sue application, the present application to reject the plaint is not maintainable in law. The case is at the stage of trial. Section 20 of CPC very clearly states that the suits can be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Section 20(c) clearly

¶25

enumerates that the cause of action wholly or part arises is the place where the suit shall be

¶26

instituted. The present case clearly falls under Section 20(c) of CPC. Hence the present

¶27

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

¶28

application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be rejected.

¶29

This Court heard both sides and also perused the documents available on record.

¶30

On perusal of records would show that initially, the respondent/plaintiff filed an

¶31

application in A.No.2668 of 2012 seeking for leave to sue as the defendants are residing

¶32

outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the said application was allowed by this Court on

¶33

29.06.2012. But, however, without filing an application to revoke the order of granting leave

¶34

to sue, the applicants/defendants have come forward with the present application to reject the

¶35

plaint, which is not maintainable in law. A reading of the plaint very clearly discloses the

¶36

cause of action and the cause of action para is very clear on the territorial jurisdiction.

¶37

Though the suit has been filed in the year 2012, the applicants/defendants have come forward

¶38

with the present application to reject the plaint with the delay of two years. .In such

¶39

circumstances, this present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

In the result, this application is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

(A.A.NAKKIRAN J.) 06-01-2025

¶42

uma

¶43

A No. 7960 of 2014

¶44

¶45

A. Abdul Rahman

¶46

10 Savarimuthu Lane Pudupet Chennai 2

¶47

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

M. Miyakani and 8 Others v. a. Abdul Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Miyakani and 8 Others v. a. Abdul Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha alias Sudha Vijayakuamr and another Vs Geetha alias Geetha Madhu Mohan

S.Balasubramani Vs Dr.a.B.Selvarangam (Died) 1.Tmt.S.Rajalakshmi and another

Geetha @ Geetha Madhu Mohan Vs Sudha alias Sudha Vijaya Kumar and another

Iynul Marlia Vs The Union of India

T.S.Narasimhan (Deceased) Vs Hema Raman

S.Avanthikaa Vs S.Dhandapani and 3 Others