Dismissed¶35

Elanchezhian v. Ramalingam

Madras HC6 Feb 2026CRP(MD)/295/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 151 CPC; scope of plaint-rejection enquiry limited to plaint averments; res judicata not decidable at plaint-rejection stage; limitation; mixed question of law and fact raised by respondents' counsel; partition suit O.S.No.18 of 2020 Sivagangai; Article 227 Constitution of India revision; CRP(MD) No.295 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar 2025 (5) CTC 627; defendants free to plead defences at trial; connected petition CMP(MD) No.1276 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioners to raise all defences available in law during trial; trial Court to decide the suit on its own merits uninfluenced by observations; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP(MD) No.1276 of 2026) closed.

Elanchezhian Vs Ramalingam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.18 of 2020 was liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and barred by res judicata. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited to examination of the plaint averments alone; the Court cannot embark on an enquiry into the truth or correctness of the allegations or the defence raised by the defendants, and a plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendants dispute the plaintiff's rights or challenge the documents relied upon, such issues falling within the domain of trial.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the trial Court's conclusion (which relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pandurangan Vs. T.Jayarama Chettiar and another, 2025 (5) CTC 627), this Court confirmed that for rejection of the plaint the Court cannot go into the question of maintainability on the ground of res judicata.

¶34

Key takeaways

This Court found no error or infirmity in the trial Court's order dismissing the plaint-rejection application.ratio¶34
The petitioners were granted liberty to raise all defences available in law before the trial Court during trial, and the trial Court was directed to decide the suit independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations in the impugned order or in this order.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (N. Senthilkumar J.) — Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.10.2025 in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.18 of 2020 (Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai), whereby the trial Court dismissed the petitioners'/defendants 2 to 5's application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint in a partition suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. Held: (i) the scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited to examination of the plaint averments alone; the Court cannot enquire into the truth or correctness of allegations or the defendants' defence, disputes over the plaintiff's rights or documents being matters for trial; (ii) endorsing the trial Court's reliance on Pandurangan Vs. T.Jayarama Chettiar and another (Hon'ble Supreme Court), 2025 (5) CTC 627, for rejection of a plaint the Court cannot go into the question of maintainability on the ground of res judicata; (iii) no error or infirmity was found in the trial Court's order. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all defences available in law during trial, the trial Court being directed to decide the suit independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations in the impugned order or this order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.295 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 06.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.295 of 2026 and CMP(MD) No.1276 of 2026

¶7

1.Elanchezhian 2.Elamaran 3.Tamilselvi

¶8

4.Karuppaiya ... Petitioners Vs

1.Ramalingam

Vasanthal (Died)

2.Saraswathi

3.Kasthoori ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.04 of 2024 in O.S.No.18 of 2020 on the file of Learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai.

¶14

For Petitioners : Ms.Rukmani for Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Ms.Vasantha Lakshmi for Mr.S.Madhavan

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

CRP(MD). No.295 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.18 of 2020, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai.

¶20

2.The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 2020 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai, for the relief of partition along with other reliefs. Pending suit, the petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to reject the plaint. The trial Court, by an order dated 29.10.2025 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶21

3.The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit is barred by limitation. She would further submit that the first respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to sue the suit, since the dispute between the same parties in respect of the very same property has already been decided before the civil Court. Hence, she would submit that the plaint is a vexatious litigation and the

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

CRP(MD). No.295 of 2026

¶25

threshold.

¶26

same is liable to be rejected on the ground of res judicata at the threshold.

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the prayer sought for by the petitioners for rejection of plaint is wholly un-sustainable, as the issue involved is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and fact.

¶28

5.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

6.Admittedly, the scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is limited to examine the plaint averments alone, without embarking upon an enquiry into the truth or correctness of the allegations or the defence raised by the defendants. A plaint cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the defendants dispute the rights of the plaintiff or challenges the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. Such issues necessarily fall within the domain of the trial.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

CRP(MD). No.295 of 2026

¶33

7.In the case on hand, the trial Court by relying upon the

¶34

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pandurangan Vs. T.Jayarama Chettiar and another reported in 2025 (5) CTC 627 , has rightly held that for rejection of the plaint, the Court cannot go into the question of maintainability on the ground of res judicata . This Court also finds no error or infirmity in the order of the trial Court.

¶35

8.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed granting

¶36

liberty to the petitioners to raise all defences available in law before the trial Court during trial. It is made clear that the trial Court shall decide the suit independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order or in this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶37