O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the rejection of unnumbered suit, O.S.No.... of 2022 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram dated 21.06.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 and 7 to 10 not to create any encumbrance and to declare the sale deed dated 09.09.2021 bearing No.2142/2022 as null and void and also to declare the sale deed dated 28.01.2022 bearing No.205/2022 as null and void and to restrain the 11^th defendant, the Sub Registrar not to encumber and register the same if any effected by the defendants 1 and 2 and 7 to 10. The learned Principal District Judge, even without numbering the suit, holding that the petitioner/plaintiff has not produced any document to show the money transactions or any correspondence between the parties to support his claim, rejected his claim.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is the specific case of the petitioner that he is having audio and video recordings to prove the money transactions between the parties, while so, the learned Judge had pre- determined the issues involved in the suit and even without numbering the suit, dismissed the same. Learned counsel further submits that this Court in the case of Selvaraj vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 2514, has set out parameters, under which, the Court may reject the plaint before numbering and entering it in the Register of Suits, if from a reading of the plaint, it is seen that the suit is barred by any law or if it suffers from any procedural infirmity. Learned counsel further submits that sufficiency or adequacy of pleadings cannot be gone into at the stage of numbering and the trial Court should not call for any proof of allegations in the plaint and the merits of the matter or correctness of the pleadings cannot be gone at the pre-numbering stage. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned trial judge ought to be set aside and the suit should be taken on file.

4. Per contra, Mr.Avisash Wadhwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that since no documentary evidence has been produced, the trial court has refused to take the plaint on file. He further submits that vexatious litigation should be nipped in the bud and the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 11^th respondent submits that he is a formal party.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. The order passed by the learned Principal District Judge is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“ 21.06.2022:

Heard. This suit is filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 and 7 to 10 not to create any encumbrance and to declare the sale deed dated 09.09.2021 bearing No.2142/2022 as null and void and also to declare the sale deed dated 28.01.2022 bearing No.205/2022 as null and void and to restrain the 11^th defendant, the Sub Registrar not to encumber and to register the same if any effected by the defendants 1 and 2 and 7 to 10.

The plaintiff claimed joint owner of suit property by stating that he had contributed 25% of sale consideration. But he has not produced any documents to prove the same. He further stated that plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 as per oral agreement decided to sell the property to an extent of 0.18 cents of land for Rs.85,000/- per cent. 1^st and 2^nd defendant executed a sale agreement on 10.02.2021 with 7^th defendant. He further stated that the sale price was fixed at Rs.3,00,000/- per cent. But not informed the same to plaintiff. The plaintiff was paid with a sum of Rs.13,17,500/- and the 3 to 7 defendants received Rs.5,27,000/- each and subsequently the defend