R.Maragathavel Vs G.Krishnaveni Ammal

¶1

CRP Nos.4332 & 4333 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP Nos.4332 & 4333 of 2025 & CMP.22240 of 2025

¶7

R.Maragathavel

¶8

S/o. K. Ramachandran Plot No. 9, Kanagambaram street, Vivekanda Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai 053 Now at Plot I, II Main Road, Lakshmi Nagar Extension, Porur, Chennai 116

¶9

..Petitioner(s) in both

¶10

CRPs

¶11

Vs

¶12

G.Krishnaveni Ammal W/o. V.Govindarajan Plot No. 37/5, Srinagar Colony, West Street, Kolathur, Chennai 99

¶13

C.Mohanarangam S/o. Late. A.Chinnaraj No. 11/2, New No. 25, Chinnasamy Raja Street, Agram, Peravallur, Chennai 11

¶14

Tahsildar No.1, Palli Arasan Street, New Avadi Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai 023

¶15

Sub Registrar Sembium Sub - Registration Office, Sembium Perambur, Chennai 11

¶16

..Respondent(s) in both

¶17

CRPs.

¶18

Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the Docket order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Learned I

¶19

Page1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

CRP Nos.4332 & 4333 of 2025

¶22

Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai made in IA No. 1 of 2021 and I.A.No.6 of 2024 in OS No. 9738 of 2021.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): K.Shanmugakhani [in both CRPs.] [in both CRPs.] For Respondent(s): Mr.S.S.Vijayakumar – R1 [in both CRPs.] Mr.C.Sathish, Government Advocate – R3 & R4

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

Challenging the impugned Orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.1 of 2021 and 6 of 2024 in O.S.No.9738 of 2021, the second defendant has preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

¶26

The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 30.08.2018 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void and non-est and is not acted upon with respect to the suit schedule property, for declaration that the patta issued in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property is null and void and consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 under section 80[2] of CPC to dispense with the notice to the defendants and the learned trial Court had Ordered the application. Similarly, the second defendant on entering appearance had filed application in I.A.No.6

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

CRP Nos.4332 & 4333 of 2025

¶30

of 2024 to reject the plaint filed by the plaintiff on the ground that since the relief of declaration has been claimed against third and fourth defendants, who are public servants, notice to the Government servants is mandatory under section 80 of CPC. The first respondent/plaintiff raised objections by filing counter. Considering the submissions on either side, the trial Court had dismissed the application filed to reject the plaint. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has not been served with the notice and the plaintiff has falsely claimed that she had issued notice under section 80 CPC in her counter filed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 and the trial Court erroneously Ordered the application filed to dispense with notice to the respondents 2 to 4 and dismissed the application filed to reject the plaint. Hence, prayed to set aside the Orders passed by the trial Court.

¶32

It is relevant to note that the plaintiff had filed an application under section 80[2] of CPC to dispense with notice to the respondents/defendants and the trial Court had considered and Ordered dispense with. Therefore, it does not require further notice under section 80 of CPC. If at all the Government Officials have to raise objections, the same can be raised in the main suit itself and the same will be considered by the trial Court. Similarly, the trial Court had

¶33

Page3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

CRP Nos.4332 & 4333 of 2025

¶36

dismissed the application to reject the plaint holding that since the application filed by the plaintiff to dispense with has been Ordered on 23.12.2021 and as

¶37

the second defendant had not questioned the Order by way of revision or appeal

¶38

and that the present application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and therefore, the Orders of the trial Court are sustainable. Hence, this Court

¶39

is of the view that the impugned Orders of the trial Court need no interference.

¶40