The central legal point established is that a suit cannot be rejected on maintainability, and the Court should first number the suit and then decide on its merits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the return docket order dated 08.03.2019 in CNR No.TNKP010006972019 (Filing Number OS.No.227 of 2019) on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. As per the decision of this Court in the case of P.Seyyammal vs. R.Chinnasamy reported in 2009 SCC Online Mad 2187, there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondent since the order impugned herein is a docket order returning the plaint of an unnumbered suit.

2. The relief sought by the petitioner in this petition is to set aside the return docket order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in CNR No.TNKP010006972019 (Filing Number OS.No.227 of 2019).

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is a Flat Owners Association consisting of 1200 and odd members. Since 29.06.2017, the respondent has been making several derogatory and defamatory remarks against the petitioner association and its committee members by way of e-mails that have been exchanged between the parties. Aggrieved over the act of the respondent, on 25.02.2019, the petitioner has filed a defamatory suit bearing CNR No.TNKP010006972019 (Filing Number O.S.No.227 of 2019) on the file of Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, however, on account of certain defects, the plaint of the said suit was returned for compliances. So, the petitioner has complied the said defects and refiled the plaint. Thereafter, on 08.03.2019, the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu has passed the following docket order in CNR No.TNKP010006972019 (Filing Number OS.No.227 of 2019):

“On perusal, this Suit involves the use of alternative of papers based material of communication and information storage to facilitate this electronic filing of documents (Information Technology Act, 2000) this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case. Return to present before proper forum. Time one month.”

Challenging the above docket order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court for the relief stated supra.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the modern day era, social mode of communication has become the order of the day whereby almost all communications are done either by e-mail, WhatsApp or SMS and seldom, the conventional mode of letter to be dispatched by post is being used.

4.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu has overlooked that the introduction of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity 'IT Act') which has led to the amendments in the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to include electronic records in the definition of 'evidence' of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:

“3. Interpretation-Clause: “Evidence”. ----

“Evidence” means and includes ––

(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;

(2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;] such documents are called documentary evidence.”

4.2. Further, Sections 65A and 65B of the Act were introduced to make electronic evidence admissible in the Court of law. An amendment was done to Section 92 of the IT Act. The conclusion arrived by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu is something which can be answered only by Principal District Court and the docket order which is impugned herein shows the palpable jurisdictional error. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the following cases:

(i) In the case of P.Seyyammal vs. R.Chinnasamy reported in 2009 SCC Online Mad 2187, this Court has held as follows:

“6. I hav