The court emphasized the necessity for a trial court to afford opportunities for hearing on maintainability and limitation before rejecting a plaint, reinforcing principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Brief facts that led to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are thus: The State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Namakkal, and the District Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Thasildhar of Namakkal, are all the plaintiffs in the unnumbered Original Suit in O.S.(SR) No.448 of 2022 on February 10, 2022. The plaint was presented on February 9, 2022. The prayer was for declaration that the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.320 of 2007 are null and void, for permanent injunction not to proceed further with the execution petition in R.E.P. No.14 of 2012 in O.S.No.320 of 2007 and for costs. The Trial Court namely the Subordinate Court, Namakkal returned the plaint in O.S. (SR) No.448 of 2022, stating that the maintainability of the Suit is to be explained by the plaintiffs. On February 25, 2022, the plaint was re- presented along with a memo from plaintiffs on the maintainability of the Suit and it included some case laws as well. On the same day, upon perusing the plaint, plaint documents and the memo filed, the Trial Court rejected the plaint without numbering it. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ' ['CPC' for short], the plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Trial Court's Order of rejection of plaint dated February 25, 2022 and number the plaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the plaint in O.S. (SR) No.448 of 2022, that is to say the revision petitioners will be referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondent herein will be referred to as the defendant.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE:

3. The plaintiffs' case in O.S. (SR) No.448 of 2022 is that, as per the 1905 Field Measurement Book [FMB], Mittah Survey No.72 of Namakkal Mittah, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District comprised land of a total extent of 9 Acre 48 Cents. As per the 1905 FMB, Survey No.72 had six sub- divisions. The extent comprised in each sub-division, as per 1905 FMB, are as detailed below:

3.1. Further case of the plaintiffs is that sub-division 2 of Survey No.72 is Government land. In 1945, defendant's grandfather namely L.Rangama Naickar, purchased an extent of 40 Cents and an extent of 73 Cents, both within specified four boundaries, out of the total 7 Acre 53 Cents comprised in sub-divisions 3 to 6 of Survey No.72, vide Sale Deed dated June 2, 1945, from one Karuppa Boyan. According to the plaintiffs, Survey No.72/2 does not find place in the aforesaid Sale Deed dated June 2, 1945 and in fact, in the Sale Deed, the southern boundary to second item therein has been shown as Mittah Poromboke, which is nothing but the Government Land in Survey No.72/2.

3.2. Later, in the year 1960, the land in Survey No.72 was resurveyed and the sub-divisions were altered and a new FMB was drawn as tabulated hereunder:

3.3. According to the plaintiffs, major portion of the extent of old Survey No.72/2 in 1905 FMB, has been assigned sub-division nos.5 and 6 in the 1960 FMB and they have been clearly described as Poromboke (Kallanguthu) Land or in other words, Government Land.

3.4.