While dismissing a Civil Revision Petition, the Madras High Court has held that a plaint cannot be summarily thrown out, invoking extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Revision Petition had been filed to strike off the plaint on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

The Single Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji held, “As already discussed in the light of the observations and directions of this Court in two separate Writ Petitions as well, it is more reason that the plaint cannot be summarily thrown out, invoking extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

Senior Counsel M. Sricharan Rangarajan represented the Petitioner while Advocate M. Venkatakrishnan represented the Respondent.

Arguments

In this matter revolving around a sale deed, it was the case of the revision petitioner that the plaintiff's sale deed had already been cancelled under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, there was no cause of action for filing the suit based on the said registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the counsel for the first Respondent/Plaintiff, stated that the plaintiff had been put in possession of the property and he had vacated tenants who were occupying the property and the matter went up to the Supreme Court as well. Even thereafter, in 2021, the plaintiff in order to put up new construction, had obtained the prior sanction plan from the Greater Chennai Corporation and having slept over the matter from 2006 to 2021, the revision petitioner had belatedly challenged the right, title and interest of the plaintiff.

Reasoning

On the aspect of the sale deed in question, the Bench took note of the fact that on a complaint given by the revision petitioner, the District Registrar, Chennai-South, conducted an inquiry and passed an order holding that the documents were forged. The said order was challenged before the Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector General confirmed the order of the District Registrar, as against which the Plaintiff filed a Petition to quash these orders of the Authorities who had exercised powers under Section 77-A and 77-B of the Registration Act retrospectively.

The Bench noticed that the effect of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was that the provision, viz., Section 77-A, is effaced from the statute and has to be construed that it did not find a place in the enactment ever since the inception of the statute.

The Bench said, “By two different orders, this Court has taken note of the pendency of the present suit and directed that the suit has to be tried on its own merits. Therefore, there cannot be a shortcut attempted by the first defendant to strike off the plaint by approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. One another compelling reason for not exercising the power to strike off the plaint is that the plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that he has been in physical possession of the subject property right from the date of his purchase and has also evicted tenants and also applied for demolition and reconstruction and even obtained sanction.”

Besides the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property subsequent to the purchase way back in the year 2003, the plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and also to restrain them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property. “Admittedly, the plaint cannot be dissected and a piece meal alone be rejected or struck off, especially when the cause projected being abuse of process. The parties would have to necessarily go for trial and it is not a fit case where this Court can exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and strike off the plaint”, it stated.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.

Cause Title: V. Seema v. K. Senthilnathan (Case No.: CRP. No.2704 of 2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Counsel M. Sricharan Rangarajan

Respondent: Advocate M. Venkatakrishnan

Click here to read/download Order


Madras High CourtJustice P.B Balaji

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.