C.R.P.No.3421 of 2022

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.3421 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.18161 of 2022

Mr.Harnaraingoel

... Petitioner

Vs.

M/s.New Fin Groups

Represented by its partners

1.Mr.A.Balasubramanian

S/o.Mr.Arumugam

No.34, Andavr Nagar, 2^nd Street,

Vadapalni, Chennai – 600 026.

2.Mr.A.ManthiraMoorthy

S/o Mr.Arjunan,

No.47/B/2,

Chokkavassai North Street, C.N.Village,

Tirunelveli District – 627 001.

... Respondents

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

of India, to set aside the order dated 02.08.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021

in O.S.No.4271 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court,

Chennai.

Page 1 of 10

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

C.R.P.No.3421 of 2022

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Prabhakar

For Respondents

: Mr.R.Raja Mahendran

For M/s.EVA Law Firm

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated

02.08.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.4271 of 2020 on the file of

the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. All Suits are to be decided on merits and in accordance with law.

Parties to the Suit are entitled to defend their respective cases based on

documents and evidences on record.

3. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure

Code is to be exercised sparingly and within the ambit of the Sub-Clauses

under the Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. The Courts are

expected to be cautious, while entertaining Interlocutory Applications filed

under Order VII Rule 11, since it prevents the parties from adjudication of

issues on merits and in accordance with law. Cause of action alone cannot

be a criteria to take a decision and the plaint as a whole must be read to

understand the cause of action aroused for institution of a Suit. Even if there

Page 2 of 10

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

C.R.P.No.3421 of 2022

is some error or omission in the cause of action, which is rectifiable and even

in case, the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11, the plaintiff is entitled

to institute a fresh Suit under Order VII Rule XIII and therefore, the

rejection of plaint can be done only with reference to the sub-clauses

stipulated under Order VII Rule 11 and not otherwise.

4. The present Civil Revision Petition has been instituted against the

order dated 02.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.4271 of 2020

on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

5. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent /

plaintiff instituted a Suit for Recovery of Money. The defendants filed an

Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.3 of 2021 for rejection of plaint, which

was dismissed by the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the 1^st plaintiff

and the defendant have jointly executed the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018,

reportedly at Chennai and the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018 is taken into

account for considering the application. It can be very well said that the part

of the cause of action for the Suit arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of

the Court, in which the Suit was instituted. Irrespective of the fact that

whether the Suit demand promissory note dated 11.06.2018 and the Debt

Page 3 of 10

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

C.R.P.No.3421 of 2022

Deed dated 12.06.2018 are genuine and really executed by the defendant,

the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018 alleged to have executed by the defendant

is important to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court and as per

the Debt Deed dated 12.06.2018, part of cause of action of the Suit arose

within the limit of the Trial Court, which entertains the Suit. However, the

merits in these aspects are triable issues, which all are to be adjudicated

based on the documents and evidences. The plaint cannot be rejected merely

on the ground that the Deed executed was a created one. The grounds raised

by the re