Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL
Vembuli, W/o. Mr. Selvaraj Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam, S/o. Mr.Kuppan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal standing for permanent injunction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. distinction between suit properties in pending cases. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. supreme court precedent on vexatious suits. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of civil revision petition. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
1.This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to strike off the plaint in O.S. No.25 of 2023 on the file of 'the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur' [hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'] by the Defendants therein.
2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Defendants and the Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the Suit in O.S. No.25 of 2023. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3. The Plaintiff filed the Suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants. The case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased the Suit Property from Subbarayapillai, Ellappillai and Kuppammal vide registered Sale Deed dated May 15, 2002. The vendors of the Plaintiff were entitled to the Suit Property as their ancestral entitlement. Ever since the purchase, the Plaintiff is in
The High Court affirmed that suits filed under different causes of action are not barred by procedural rules, highlighting the need for trial when a triable issue exists.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot substitute the statutory legal remedy for plaint rejection under the CPC.
A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit; splitting claims without court permission is impermissible.
The court emphasized that claims of vexatious suits should be resolved in trial, not through premature revisions, affirming procedural adherence in civil litigation.
Re-litigating the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against a party amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.
The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where there is a gross failure of justice or grave injustice. Th....
Revision under Art.227 allows interference only in cases of jurisdictional errors or patent perversities, which were not found here.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
