The court clarified that a plaint can only be returned once regarding procedural deficiencies, affirming the need to allow for merits-based hearings before dismissal.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned order returning the un-numbered plaint dated 01.12.2023 passed in O.S.SR.No.17212 of

2023 by the City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit on

10.11.2023 for declaring the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants as null and void and also for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. The trial Court had returned the bundle on 16.11.2023 raising various queries and despite the reply given by the plaintiff/petitioner to the queries on 30.11.2023, the trial Court had returned the plaint once again on 01.12.2023. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. The queries made by the trial Court and the reply given by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court are extracted hereunder:-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts do not have any power to return the plaint except under the circumstances set out under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. He further submitted that when the plaint or any original petition is presented, the Registry, during the scrutiny, should not act as a defendant/respondent and raise objection, which a defendant/respondent might take after entering appearance. The Registry should not return the plaint multiple times and the plaint can also not be returned as to the valuation of the plaint for the purpose of Court fee. He further submitted that the trial Court had committed a grave illegality in totally ignoring the reported decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, thereby, he seek to set aside the impugned order and also to direct the trial Court to take the plaint on file. He also submitted that the Court, after one return, should post the matter in open Court and should invite arguments of the counsel on the question of maintainability and pass a judicial order. If the objection is upheld, the aggrieved party could work out his rights. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Selvaraj and Others vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited and others reported in (2021) 3 LW 677.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the suit filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration and partition and separate possession, was returned by the trial Court on the grounds of limitation and court fee. In the decision referred supra, this Court, referring to the various earlier decisions, had set out parameters regarding numbering of the suits and held that 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, adumbrated supra. The Court, at that stage, cannot and is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the matter by testing the correctness of the plaint averments even prior to its institution.

6. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.SR.No.17212 of 2023 on 01.12.2023 is hereby set aside and the learned trial Judge is directed to call the case in the open Court, hear the counsel and pass appropriate order on merits in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

08.08.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ham To The City Civil Court, Chennai.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

ham

08.08.2024