Revision to strike off a plaint seeking specific performance under a 2004 sale agreement, allegedly superseded by later agreements and an MoU. The court declined to strike off the plaint but granted liberty to move under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; revision dismissed.
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.
CRP No. 4962 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-04-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRP No. 4962 of 2025
Petitioner(s)
Vs
2.P.I. Ibrahim S/o. P.M. Ismayl, No.1, Vennal Naidu Street, No.1, Kottai, Coimbatore - 641 001. R.Vijaya Kumar (Died)
Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
strike off the plaint in O.S.No.621 of 2018 on the file of V Additional District Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Shankar For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Chandrakumar For R.1 Mr.K. Govi Ganesan For R.2
1/4
CRP No. 4962 of 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit. He filed a petition to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.621 of 2018 stating that there is no cause of action and the prayer sought for by the plaintiffs is unsustainable for the reason that the alleged sale agreement dated 09.10.2004 relied on by the plaintiffs is already redundant by entering into another Joint Business Development Agreement dated 24.08.2007, thereafter, Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.05.2017, thereby, the alleged sale agreement relied on by the plaintiff dated 09.10.2004, as such, is not in force. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance, as per the alleged sale agreement dated 09.10.2004, as such, is illegal and there is no cause of action to file the suit and therefore, the revision petitioner prays to strike off the plaint.
2/4
CRP No. 4962 of 2025
Development Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding, but the parental document is of the year 2004. Therefore, the suit, as such, is maintainable. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Suresh vs D.Kalaivani and Others reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 143.
respondents/plaintiffs have to file a suit. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the year 2004, there was an agreement and subsequently another Joint Business Development Agreement was entered into on 24.08.2007 and Memorandum of Understanding was dated 25.05.2017. The alleged agreement dated 09.10.2004, based on which, the respondents/plaintiffs now claim the relief of specific performance is already given up. Liberty is granted to the revision petitioner/2nd defendant to approach the trial court by filing a petition to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent is sustainable.
3/4
CRP No. 4962 of 2025
T.V.THAMIL SELVI.,J
sr
01.04.2026
sr
Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking order To
V Additional District Court, Coimbatore.
CRP No.4962 of 2025
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint in O.S.No.621 of 2018 seeking specific performance under a 2004 sale agreement should be struck off as redundant by later agreements.
Whether specific performance and partition can be sought in one suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Suresh vs D.Kalaivani and OthersRelied on¶5
2026 SCC Online SC 143. · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Dineshkumar
J.R.Gobikrishnan
P.I. Ibrahim
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
