ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 29.09.2023, rejecting the pliant in O.S.SR No.1120 of 2023

on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,

Krishnarayapuram.

2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed the above suit against the respondents/defendants claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the first plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property either by demolishing the house in 'A' schedule property or in any other manner whatsoever and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the second plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property either by demolishing the house in 'B' schedule property or in any other manner whatsoever. The learned District Munsif, upon considering the plaint and the documents along with plaint and on hearing the arguments of plaintiffs side, has passed the impugned order, dated 29.09.2023, rejecting the plaint. Against the rejection order, the plaintiffs have preferred the present revision, invoking under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I have heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned Senior Counsel and also perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the plaint at the threshold disregarding the ratio laid down by this Court in reported in; that the trial Court ought not to have adjudicated the merits of the case while processing the plaint for registration; that the trial Court ought not to have played the role of the defendant and raised objections which the the defendant might raise after entering into the appearance; that the Court cannot test the correctness of the existence or otherwise of a cause of action at the numbering stage and reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of C.P.C., even prior to its numbering; that the pliant has clearly spelled out the cause of action, but the trial Court without any basis has termed the same as illusory or invented by clever drafting; that the trial Court has committed grave error in conducting mini trial, demanding the petitioner to prove the averments made in the plaint, that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by making sweeping remarks and that the petitioner has approached the Court suppressing the real facts and with unclean hands.

5. The learned trial Judge, referring the plaint averments and the documents produced by the plaintiffs along with plaint and taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by holding that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, has rejected the plaint.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court has failed to follow the judgment of this Court in case above referred; that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini trial, even before the registration of the suit and that the trial Court has no power or jurisdiction to reject the plaint that there was no cause of action and that too at the numbering stage.

7. At the out set, it is pertinent to note that a civil Court can reject the plaint at any stage of the suit, even before registration of the plaint. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in reported in, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that if the court on presentation of the plaint is of the view that the same does not fulfill the statutory and institutional requirements, the plaint can be rejected either after admitting the plaint or even before admitting the same and that therefore, the trial Court has power to recall the plaint even at the registration stage.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Boy Vs. Stage of Maharashtra and others2003) 1 SCC 557

summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial.

9. Consi