G.Solaiappan Vs G.Velrajan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

G.Solaiappan Vs G.Velrajan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the impugned order dated 09.12.2025; trial court directed to dispose of O.S.No.9567 of 2021 after framing additional issues arising from the additional written statement, within one (1) year from receipt of a copy of this order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No. 10579 of 2026) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the petitioner/defendant's application (I.A.No.4 of 2024) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in the partition suit O.S.No.9567 of 2021. +2 more

Court's answer

Since the High Court in C.RP.NO.3058 of 2023 had granted the petitioner liberty to file an additional written statement covering the additional pleas (including those sought through the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application), and the additional written statement was filed in compliance with that direction, the question of the trial court entertaining an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint does not arise.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contentions, including on partial partition and maintainability, must be agitated when the main suit is taken up for consideration by the trial court, as the additional written statement already filed includes the said plea.

Key takeaways

At this stage the Court cannot interfere with the impugned order, as interference would only delay the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.9567 of 2021.ratio¶25
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petition by not interfering with the impugned order and directed the trial court to dispose of O.S.No.9567 of 2021 after framing additional issues on account of the additional written statement taken on file, within one (1) year from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.), CRP No. 2491 of 2026 and CMP No. 10579 of 2026, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, decided 10-07-2026: Civil Revision Petition by the defendant G.Solaiappan challenging the order dated 09.12.2025 of the XX Assistant City Civil Court at Allikulam, Chennai – 3 dismissing his application I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.9567 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in the respondents'/plaintiffs' partition suit. Held: the High Court in C.RP.NO.3058 of 2023 had already granted liberty to file an additional written statement taking in the additional pleas, including those sought through the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, and the additional written statement was filed in compliance with that direction; accordingly the trial court could not entertain the rejection-of-plaint application. The petitioner's contentions on partial partition and maintainability (the respondents/plaintiffs having admitted omission of certain properties) are already embodied in the additional written statement and must be agitated when the main suit is taken up; interference at this stage would only delay the suit of 2021. Disposed of without interfering with the impugned order and without expressing any opinion on merits, with a direction to the trial court to dispose of O.S.No.9567 of 2021 after framing additional issues within one year from receipt of a copy of the order. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.