2020 Supreme(Mad) 2195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
U. Sangeetha – Appellant
Versus
R. Ulagaperoli and Others – Respondents
C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2503 of 2016, 236 of 2017, C.M.P. No. 12938 of 2016
Decided On : 16-10-2020

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act - Section 27(c) - Suit and interim injunction restraining the other party - Suit for permanent injunction restraining petitioner from alienating or encumbering the suit property to third parties and restraining the 2nd respondent not to register any sale deed in respect of suit properties executed by the petitioner in favour of the third parties - Whether the cause of action for the first and second set of suits is one and the same - whether a premature suit is required to be entertained or not - whether any useful purpose would be served by dismissing the suit as premature as same would entitle the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on a subsequent date - Whether the suit is prematured or not - Whether the leave can be granted under order ii rule 2 of c.p.c. - Whether the cause of action for the first and second set of suits is one and the same - whether a premature suit is required to be entertained or not - Whether any useful purpose would be served by dismissing the suit as premature as the same would entitle the Plaintiff to file a fresh suit on a subsequent date - Plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthagam - 1st respondent filed said suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating or encumbering the suit property to third parties and restraining the 2nd respondent not to register any sale deed in respect of suit properties executed by the petitioner in favour of the third parties - 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 137 of 2015 under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. for permission to file a suit for specific performance against the petitioner at a later stage - Petitioner filed I.A. No. under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint in O.S. No. - While said petition was pending - Petitioner filed counter affidavit and sought for dismissal of the petition filed under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C., on the ground that the 1st respondent has filed suit for injunction only based on the unregistered sale agreement - He has not filed any suit for specific performance - Alleged unregistered sale agreement is created for threatening petitioner – Held, petitioner sought for rejection of plaint filed by the 1st respondent for permanent injunction on five grounds including the ground that plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has not given any details with regard to allegation that petitioner is trying to alienate the suit property - Plaint can be rejected for any one of the conditions mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C - Petitioner has filed petition for rejection of plaint stating that there is no cause of action for the suit - Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that only averments in the plaint can be considered petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint is held to that effect in number of judgments including the judgment - petitioner for the past two months is trying to alienate the suit property - Except this statement, there is no other details about efforts of the petitioner to alienate property - When the petitioner was trying to alienate suit property, the 1st respondent has not given any explanation for not filing the suit for permanent injunction immediately and waiting for two months for initiating the said suit time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that petitioner sold major portions of the suit property - Letter sent to 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent will not be a part of cause of action as the plaint lacks particulars with regard to alienation by the petitioner - Suit for permanent injunction only and erroneously dismissed the I.A. No. 1454 of 2014 filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint - Petitions are allowed