BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 15.02.2024 Pronounced on : 05.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1837 and 1839 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9458 of 2019

1. T.Selvaraj

2.Umarani : Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 1 & 4 (in both revisions)

Vs.

K.S.Karutharajan : Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff (in both revisions)

Prayer in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1837 of 2019 :: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order in I.A.No.766 of 2009 in O.S.No.494 of 2008, dated 25.09.2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

Prayer in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1839 of 2019 :: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order in I.A.No.767 of 2009 in O.S.No.494 of 2008, dated 22.10.2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

(in both revisions)

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh and Mr.T.Balakrishnan

COMMON ORDER

The Civil Revision in C.R.P.(MD)No.1837 of 2019, is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.766 of 2009 in O.S.No.494 of 2008, dated 25.09.2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, allowing the petition filed under Order XII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The Civil Revision in C.R.P.(MD)No.1839 of 2019, is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.767 of 2009 in O.S.No.494 of 2008, dated 22.10.2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The learned counsel on either side would submit that in the impugned order passed in I.A.No.766 of 2009, dated 25.09.2018, while allowing the petition, the learned trial Judge has framed two preliminary issues, first one is as to whether the suit is properly valued and the proper Court fee has been paid and the second one is as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit; that thereafter, the trial Court has taken the preliminary issues along with petition filed in I.A.No.767 of 2009 for rejection of plaint jointly and passed a common order holding that two preliminary issues in favour of the plaintiff and by dismissing the petition for rejection of plaint.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since preliminary issues were already tried and the trial Court has already given a finding therefor, nothing survives for further adjudication in the Civil Revision in C.R.P(MD)No.1837 of 2019 and has become infructuous.

5. Considering the above and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Civil Revision in C.R.P(MD)

No.1837 of 2019 is dismissed as infructuous.

6. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 4. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.494 of 2008 against the revision petitioners and two others claiming declaration that the decree, dated 27.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.551 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, obtained by the first defendant in active collusion and connivance with the second defendant by procuring the documents in clear violation to the Advocates Act by playing fraud upon the Court is null and void and void ab-initio and vitiated by fraud and false representation and not binding upon the plaintiff and for declaration that the sale deed, dated 06.08.2007, obtained by the first defendant in his name with active collusion and connivance with the defendants 2 and 3 by playing fraud upon the Court is null and void and void ab-initio and vitiated by fraud and false representation and not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way either alienating or encumbering the suit property in pursuance of the alleged sale deed, dated 06.08.2007 obtained by him in his favour by playing fraud upon the Court and also in detrimental to right and interest of the plaintiff over the s