The court held that if a plaint shows no valid cause of action and is barred by limitation, it should be rejected to prevent misuse of legal process.

ORDER :

R.Vijayakumar, J.

The second defendant in O.S.No.356 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli has filed the present civil revision petition to strike off the plaint in the said suit.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.A perusal of the plaint reveals that the suit has been filed for the relief of recovery of possession, permanent injunction and for a declaration to declare that Document No.586 of 2004 and Document No. 2979 of 2005 on the file of the Panagudi Sub Registrar Office as null and void.

3.The plaintiff has averred that the suit schedule property measuring an extent of 16 cents in Survey No.971/2 is the ancestral property of plaintiff's father namely Cruz Antony Nadar through a registered sale deed dated 06.12.1939. It is further averred that the first defendant had forged a power of attorney deed dated 02.11.2004 as if the plaintiff and his sister have executed the same. The plaintiff had lodged a police complaint under Sections 465 , 467 and 419 of I.P.C. The said complaint is pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.223 of 2007.

4.It is further averred in the plaint that the first defendant as power agent has executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant on 20.12.2004. It is further contended that the first defendant has defrauded the second defendant and had executed the sale deed on 20.12.2004 conveying the entire land measuring 32 cents in Survey No.971/2 instead of 16 cents of vacant plot. Though the plaintiff has sent word to the first defendant through known people to hand over vacant possession of the schedule property, there was no response. Hence, the present suit.

(B)Contentions of the counsels on either side:

5.The second defendant who is the purchaser of the property through the first defendant had filed the revision petition seeking to strike off the plaint on the following grounds:

a)The suit schedule property has been sold by the plaintiff through his power agent to the second defendant way back in the year 2004. There is no reference in the plaint when the plaintiff had knowledge about the said power deed or the said sale deed.

b)The plaintiff had lodged a police complaint before the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli as against the Managing Director of the second defendant company and others on 23.05.2005 and an F.I.R was registered in Crime No.14 of 2005. The said F.I.R was closed by the police authority as 'mistake of fact'. The plaintiff had filed a protest petition on 12.05.2016 and the same is pending in C.C.No.223 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli. Therefore, the plaintiff had knowledge about the power deed and the sale deed even in the year 2005. The present suit having been filed to set aside the document of the year 2004, is clearly barred by limitation.

c)The cause of action paragraph in the plaint clearly refers to the criminal complaint dated 23.05.2005. A certified copy of the complaint in C.C.No.223 of 2017 is enclosed as plaint document No.2 along with the plaint. Therefore, a reading of the plaint along with the enclosed document would clearly reveal that the suit is barred by limitation.

d)The second defendant had filed O.S.No.79 of 2005 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli as against the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction with regard to the present suit schedule property along with other properties. After contest, the suit was decreed by the trial Court on 06.06.2006. The plaintiff had filed A.S.No.50 of 2006 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli and the appeal was dismissed on 17.07.2007. Therefore, the pres