Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 40256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.12.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.R.P.(P.D) No. 3638 of 2022 Velliangiri ...Petitioner Vs.
1.A.Subramani
2.Radhakrishnan
3.RAvi
4.C.Anandhan 5.Prabhavathi 6. P.Thirupathi 7. K.Thirupathi
8. Udhayakumar 9. B.C.Mohanraj 10. G.Srinivasan
11. Shanthi
12. Padmanathan
13. K.K.Raja
14. S.Senthilkumar
15. S.G.Sridhar 16. V.Rajendran
17. Raman
18. K.R.Gopi
19. Sabirudhin
20. G.Selvi
21. Haribabu
22. Dinesh
23. Indira
24. Rajasekar
25. Senthilkumar
26. C.Murugan
27. Balashanmugam
28. V.Valar 29. Shanthi
30. Panbu
31. B.Senthilkumar
32. Usha
33. A.Senthil 34. Vino Bajii
35. Ramesh 36. R.Susila 37. Kalpana
38. K.Thambiraj
39. Giridharan 40. Nagarajan
41. Alamelu
42. C.Ponuvel 43. Thenmozhi
44. Devarajan
45. Thamaraiselvi
46. M.Veerabathiran
47. Sirajithin 48. Jegadesan
49. Rajesh 50. Balaji
51. M.Chandhiran
52. Sathish 53. Sathya 54. Shanthi
55. Sunilkumar
56. Nagaesh
57. Sekar 58. Iqbal
59. Rukumai
60. Saranya ...Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court in Unnumbered IP.No. of 2022 in CFR.No. 3744 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, and consequently direct the registry of the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, to number the petition in IP.No. of 2022 in CFR.No.3744 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jagadish
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted to set aside the order dated 08.08.2022, passed in un-numbered IP of 2022, in CFR no.3744 of 2022.
2. The revision petitioner filed an Insolvency Petition on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that even before numbering the Insolvency Petition and without affording opportunity to the writ petitioner to establish his insolvency status, the Principal Subordinate Court rejected the Insolvency Petition which was un-numbered. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of this Court in the case of Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Ltd. reported in (2021) 4 CTC 539, wherein the principles to deal with the Insolvency Petitions were considered in paragraph 53, which reads as under:
“53. Now, to facilitate the process of scrutiny of plaint at the preliminary, preregistration stage in the manner herein above stated, this Court tabulate the same below:
| Heads | Permissible during scrutiny of plaint | Not permissible |
| Cause title and form of pleading (Order VI Rule 3) | Yes. Can be verified if there is a substantial compliance of Appendix A. | |
| Parties to suit Order VII Rule 1 (a) to (b) and Rule 4 | Yes. Required to the extent required, and if the suit is laid in a representative capacity. | |
| Maintainability (cause of action) Sec.9 & Order VII Rule 1(e) | Yes. Only to the extent of ascertaining if the plaintiff has a legally recongised enforceable right on plain reading of the plaint, and no more. | ØSufficiency or adequacy of pleading cannot be gone into. Hence grounds of fraud as in Order or VI Rule 4 CPC cannot be insisted. ØProof of any of the allegations in the plaint should not be sought. ØMerits of the matter or correctness of the pleadings cannot be gone into. |
| Maintainability (Jurisdiction) Sec.9 CPC | ØIf the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is barred in granting the relief sought by any statute. ØCaution must be exercised before returning a plaint. |
| Heads | Permissible during scrutiny of plaint | Not permissible |
| The entire plaint, the cause of action and the relief sought must be understood as are stated or disclosed in the plaint alone need to be considered. ØThe statutory provision barring the institution of the civil suit or excluding the civil court's inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the civil dispute must be strictly understood. | ||
| Maintainability (Limitation) Yes. Where a suit is ex facie barred by limitation. Only the allegation in the plaint should be the basis. However, the where plaintiff pleads exemption from the law of limitation under Order VII Rule 6, this should be left to be tested post registration of the suit at the appropriate stage. | Newer or clarificatory material or proof of any fact pertaining to limitation should not be insisted. | |
| Maintainability Territorial and Pecuniary jurisdiction Order Sec. 15 to 21 r/w Order VII Rule 1(f) | Yes. | |
| Money suits Order VII Rule 2 | If precise amount is stated | |
| However, sufficiency of the description cannot be gone into. | ||
| Description of Property Order VII Rule 3 | Yes | Again, if there is any variance of extent or boundary description with |
| Heads | Permissible during scrutiny of plaint | Not permissible |
| any title deed, even that may be formally notified for a possible typographical or clerical mistake, but if any explanation is offered justifying the extent stated, the plaint has to be registered. This is because, looking for proof and correctness of pleadings is not contemplated | ||
