Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13768
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Y. FATHIMA BANU – Appellant
Versus
L. SUBHA – Respondent
C.R.P.No.122 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.876 of 2025
Mr.G.Govarthanan for Mr.R.Krishnakumar
The appropriateness of relief sought cannot be determined at the plaint numbering stage; cause of action must be assessed after notice to defendants.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Rejection of plaint - The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against defendants regarding property encumbrance after partial payment for a sale agreement. The Trial Court rejected the plaint, stating no cause of action existed for the injunction. The court emphasized that the appropriateness of relief cannot be determined at the plaint numbering stage and that the cause of action should be assessed after notice to the defendants. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court reiterated that the rejection of a plaint without notice to the opposite party is contrary to natural justice and not sustainable under law. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants regarding property after making partial payment for a sale agreement. The first defendant allegedly created encumbrances and issued a bounced cheque. The Trial Court rejected the plaint, claiming no cause of action existed.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of the plaint without notice to the defendants was erroneous and contrary to natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint without notice to the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appropriateness of the relief sought cannot be determined at the plaint numbering stage and that the cause of action must be assessed after notice to the defendants.
Result: The order of the Trial Court is set aside, and the civil revision petition is allowed.
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai rejecting the plaint in O.S.SR No.11149 of 2024, the civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the case:-
i) The revision petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from creating any encumbrance upon the suit schedule property of an extent of 817 sqft. comprised in R.S.No.2252/13 as per Patta Survey No.2252/53, O.S.No.7700, George Town C.C.N.26383 and 3440, Block No.20 situate at Muthialpet Village, within the Sub-Registration District of Sowcarpet and registration District of North Chennai (the then registration District of Central Chennai).
ii) It is the case of the plaintiff/revision petitioner that the respondents/defendants had insisted her to purchase the suit schedule property and the plaintiff also accepted to purchase the same for a sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- and thereby paid a total sum of Rs.27,73,950/- on various dates and got an unregistered sale agreement dated 24.7.2024.
iii) Later, the petitioner/plaintiff came to know that the first defendant was involving in the offences of money swindling with forged documents and had she had created encumbrance over the property and shared the money paid by the plaintiff with the second defendant.
iv) Later, when the plaintiff had asked for return of money, the first defendant had issued a cheque and when it was presented for collection, it had been returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient".
v) Apprehending that the first defendant would encumber the property, the petitioner had filed the suit with the above prayer.
vi) The Trial Court, holding that the plaint averments give rise for cause of action to the plaintiff to file an appropriate suit for recovery of money or for specific performance of contract by paying the balance sale consideration and that the cause of action to file the suit for permanent injunction had not existed, had rejected the suit as not maintainable. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. Mr.G.Govarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to seek the relief and the appropriateness or suitability of the relief to be sought for cannot be gone into at the time of numbering of the suit and it is not the duty of the court to conduct a mini trial at the time of numbering of the suit itself. He further submitted that the question as to whether there is any cause of action or not can, ultimately, be decided only after issuing of notice to the other side and the court cannot act as a spokesman of the defendant. Though the defendant may raise such a contention, it is not the stage to reject the plaint outright holding that it is not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely on Selvaraj vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Ltd. 2021 (4) CTC 529 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Hariraj (2002) 1 MLJ 684 .
4. From the office endorsement, it is seen that the first respondent could not be served notice, she having been vacated from her residential address, while the second respondent, despite service of notice, had not chosen to appear either in person or through a counsel. Since the issue is only between the court petitioner and the court, this court is of the view that no fresh notice needs to be sent to the respondents.
5. Having gone through the materials available on record, this court finds that this application has been rejected holding that the petitioner has got other relief and that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the suit for permanent injunction.
6. In Selvaraj vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Ltd. , 2021 (4) CTC 529 , this court has held that appropriateness or suitability of the relief sought cannot be gone into during the scrutiny of the plaint and it is not the court's job and seeking the relief is the pr
