ORDER :

[Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.121 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur.]

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint instituted in O.S.No.121 of 2020.

2. The revision petitioner is the 6th defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs, who instituted a Suit for Partition in O.S.No.121 of 2020.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners states that the Suit Scheduled Property is a self-acquired property of the revision petitioners and the Partition Deed was registered on 28.04.1989 and therefore, the Suit filed after three (3) decades by the respondents 1 and 2 is not maintainable and thus, the plaint is to be striked off.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the subject properties were purchased by the revision petitioner from the legal heirs of the one Kanniyappan and in this regard, the plaintiffs have set out the facts and circumstances in the plaint. Thus, the issues are to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law.

5. The cause of action set out in the plaint in O.S.No.121 of 2020 reveals that Deed of Partition was registered on 28.04.1989 and on 19.03.1991 an agreement for sale was entered in the name of late Elumalai Reddy. On 11.10.1995, the property was registered in the name of Kanniyappan. During the year 2004 when the plaintiff's father died, on various dates when the defendant turned hostile towards the plaintiff. On several dates when the family members are invited for amicable partition. On 09.02.2020 when Kanniyappan died, during the first week of March 2020 when the plaintiff came to know about the sale of the Scheduled Property to the 6th defendant. On 11.06.2020, when the plaintiffs issued legal notice for partition of the properties at Neduvarambakkam Village, Chozhavaram Firrka, Ponneri Taluk, the plaintifffs have chosen to institute a Suit for partition.

6. The bundle of facts as narrated in the cause of action paragraph and the plaint is to be taken as a whole for the purpose of striking off the plaint. When several facts are narrated, it is preferable to adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law rather than striking off the plaint, which would cause prejudice to the interest of the plaintiffs and deprive the right to adjudicate the issues on merits. The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the principles to be adopted are considered in the following Judgements:-

7. In paragraph 14 at page 217 of Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another reported in [AIR 1954 SC 215], wherein, the Supreme Court neatly formulated the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227 in the following words:

“The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries C.J., in ‘Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee’, AIR 1951 Calcutta 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.”

8. The Chief Justice Harries in the Full Bench decision in Dalmia case (cited supra) stated that the principles on which the High Court can exercise its power under Article 227 very succinctly which would better, quote :

“Though this Court has a right to interfere with decisions of Courts and tribunals under its power of superintendence, it appears to me that the right must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in Manmathanath Vs. Emperor [AIR 1933 Calcutta 132]. In that case a Bench over which Sir George Rankin C. J. presided held that Section 107, Government of India Act (which roughly 2 corresponds to Article 227 of the Constitution), does not vest the High