C.R.P.No.3813 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.3813 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.19406 of 2022

1.Krishnaswami

2.Radhakrishnan

3.Natarajan.

4.Ravi Kumar

...

Petitioners

Vs

1.S.Kumar

2.The State of Tamil Nadu Government,

Rep.by its District Collector,

Coimbatore.

3.Director,

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3813 of 2022

Directorate of Town and Country Planning,

Coimbatore Zonal, Coimbatore.

4.The Block Development Officer,

Pollachi North.

5. The Sub Collector,

Pollachi.

6.The President,

Achipatty Panchayat,

Sangampalayam Village.

...

Respondents

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated

03.08.2022 in I.A.No.02 of 2021 renumbered as I.A.No.03 of 2022 in

O.S.No.256 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,

Pollachi.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.C.R.Prasanan

For Respondents :

Mr.P.Rajendran (for R1)

:

Dr.S.Suriya, AGP (for R4 to R6)

:

Mr.P.Harish, GP(CS),

(forR2, R3 & R5)

ORDER

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3813 of 2022

The civil revision petition has been instituted against the Fair and

Decretal Order dated 03.08.2022 in I.A.No.02 of 2021, re-numbered as

I.A.No.03 of 2022, in O.SNo.256 of 2020. The revision petitioners are the

defendants 1 to 4 in the suit which was instituted by the first respondent for

mandatory injunction.

2. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners filed an

Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of

the plaint. The petitioners filed the Interlocutory Application mainly on the

ground that the suit is barred by the principles of Res Judicata and Estoppel,

contending that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the

plaintiff did not produce any sale deed of his endorse or any other document

to show any right or title over the Park and therefore, the suit instituted is

not maintainable and consequently, the plaint is to be rejected.

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3813 of 2022

3.The Trial Court considered the grounds raised by the revision

petitioners and made a finding that in respect of the earlier suit filed in

O.S.No.396 of 2012, the plaintiff in the present suit and the house site

owners were not made as a party and therefore, the said decree passed in

O.S.No.396 of 2012 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Further, the Trial Court

made a finding that the plaint averments and the document filed therewith,

disclose the first respondent/plaintiff's right and cause of action against the

defendants. Thus, the issues have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial

and more so, plea regarding Res Judicata and Estoppel is to be considered by

way of complete adjudication.

4.The scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been considered by this

Court in C.R.P. No.118 of 2023, dated 23.01.2023, which is also extracted

hereunder:

6. The power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to be

exercised sparingly by the Courts. All the suits are to be

adjudicated on merits and in accordance with the law. Lenient

4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3813 of 2022

view is certainly not desirable when the plaint and cause of

action reveals certain facts and therefore, the Courts are

expected to be doubly cautious while exercising the power

under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. There may be vexatious suits

which all are instituted by the litigants. May that as it be. Even

in such cases, if there are certain doubtful facts or otherwise,

then conducting a trial would be more preferable than rejecting

the plaint. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC enumerates rejection of

plaint on certain circumstances as contemplated under sub-

clause (a) to (f) in Rule 11.

7. Order VII Rule 13 of CPC denotes: "The rejection of

the plaint on any