Dismissed¶33

Sevugaperumal v. Nisha Catherine

Madras HC23 Jul 2026CRP/4140/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; C.R.P.No.4140 of 2026; Abdul Quddhose J.; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; specific performance of agreement of sale; cancellation of sale agreement not accepted; advance amount refund in court deposit; cause of action; adjudication confined to plaint averments; ready and willing plaintiff; Article 227 Constitution of India; time-bound disposal of suit; Kancheepuram; O.S.No.155 of 2021.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; no costs; trial Court (Principal District Court, Kancheepuram) directed to dispose of O.S.No.155 of 2021 within eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.No.18112 of 2026 closed. ¶33

Sevugaperumal Vs Nisha Catherine — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.155 of 2021 (suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale) is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the advance amount was refunded and the sale agreement was terminated/cancelled, leaving no cause of action for the plaintiff.

¶21

Court's answer

Since the respondent/plaintiff had not accepted the cancellation of the agreement of sale and the refund amount is lying in court deposit, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in the suit for specific performance will not arise for entertainment; the issues raised by the defendant can be decided only after trial.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be adjudicated only on the basis of the plaint averments and the documents filed along with the plaint; as the plaintiff pleaded she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the trial Court rightly dismissed the rejection-of-plaint application.

¶29

Key takeaways

No infirmity was found in the impugned order; the civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of O.S.No.155 of 2021 within eight months from receipt of a copy of the order; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the dismissal of the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Held: the plaintiff had not accepted the cancellation of the agreement of sale and the refund of the advance was lying in court deposit; an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application must be adjudicated solely on the plaint averments and documents filed with the plaint; the plaintiff having pleaded continued readiness and willingness to perform, the questions raised by the defendant were triable only at trial. No infirmity in the impugned order; revision dismissed with a direction to the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram to dispose of O.S.No.155 of 2021 within eight months. (Abdul Quddhose, J.)

¶1

C.R.P.No.4140 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.07.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

C.R.P.No.4140 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.18112 of 2026

K.Sevugaperumal

..Petitioner

Vs.

Nisha Catherine

..Respondent

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.155 of 2021.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.M.Himavanth for Mr.S.Marshall

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the

¶15

impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.155 of 2021.

¶16

1\6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.No.4140 of 2026

¶19

In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner,

¶20

who is the defendant in the suit seeking for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.

¶21

The contention of the petitioner / defendant is that he has already refunded the advance amount to the respondent / plaintiff and had already terminated the sale agreement and therefore, there is no cause of action for the respondent / plaintiff to sue the petitioner / defendant in respect of the agreement of sale which has been cancelled.

¶22

As seen from the impugned order, the respondent / plaintiff had

¶23

not accepted the cancellation of agreement of sale. In fact, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the amount sought to be refunded by the petitioner / defendant is now lying in the account of the Court deposit.

¶24

The trial Court, while dismissing the application has also observed that merely because there is an admission regarding the receipt of an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the same cannot lead to any inference

¶25

2\6

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.No.4140 of 2026

¶28

that the contract has been given a go-by as claimed by the petitioner / defendant. When the respondent / plaintiff did not make any request to the petitioner / defendant for refunding the advance amount and when the advance amount has not been received by the respondent / plaintiff, even though the petitioner / defendant had earlier directly remitted the advance amount in the respondent / plaintiff’s bank account which has now been deposited to the credit of the suit, the question of entertaining an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking for rejection of plaint in respect of the suit for specific performance will not arise as the issues raised by the petitioner / defendant can be decided only after trial.

¶29

Further, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has to be adjudicated only based on the plaint averments and the documents filed along with the plaint. When the respondent / plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and she has also fulfilled the same, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner / defendant through the impugned order. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any 3\6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.No.4140 of 2026

¶32

infirmity in the impugned order. The only limited relief that can be granted by this Court in this civil revision petition is to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this civil revision petition and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this Court directs the trial Court, namely, the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram to dispose of O.S.No.155 of 2021, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

23.07.2026

¶35

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶36

vji

¶37

4\6

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.No.4140 of 2026