A trial court cannot return a plaint more than once for similar deficiencies without valid reasons; proper legal scrutiny must be adhered to.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed against the return order dated

19.03.2025 made in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.1119 of 2024 passed by the Subordinate Court, Sangagiri.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this revision is as under:-

(a) The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled to be owners of the suit property and to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.376 of 2012 as null and void.

(b) The suit was filed on 29.11.2024. The concerned court has returned the plaint and it was represented on various dates. The return endorsements and the compliance notes of the counsel for petitioners are extracted hereunder :-

1.

Challenge in this revision is made against the order of returning the plaint dated 19.03.2025 which reads as follows:-

“19.03.25 Returned.

Heard in open court. Explanation given in plaint perused and the same is not legally sustainable. Hence the plaint is returned for the same reason given on the previous return order.”

3. Since the order impugned is between the petitioner and the court this court is of the opinion that no notice is required to be sent to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the counsel representing the returned bundle after compliance, the court had repeatedly returned the bundle for the very same reasons. He would contend that the correctness of the pleadings cannot be gone into at the stage of numbering and when the petitioners have an independent and substantive cause of action in the present suit, the trial court ought not to have returned the plaint. He would further submit that court during scrutiny of the plaint is bound to ascertain only to the extent whether the plaintiffs have a legally recognised or enforceable right and nothing more and further the court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of pleadings and merits of the matter or correctness of the pleadings cannot be insisted. He would further add that the court can also not insist for grounds of fraud as in Order VI Rule 4 CPC .

5. In support of the above contention the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon on the judgement of this Court made in CRP(MD).Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 and 330 of 2020 dated 16.07.2021 [1.Selvaraj and others Vs. 1.Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited, Rep. Through its Project Director, Koodankulam, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and others]

6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. This Court in CRP(MD).Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 and 330 of 2020 dated 16.07.2021 [1.Selvaraj and others Vs. 1Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited, Rep. Through its Project Director, Koodankulam, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and others], has held that the courts during scrutiny of the plaint is bound to ascertain only to the extent whether the plaintiffs have a legally recognised or enforceable right and nothing more and further the court cannot insist for proof into the sufficiency or adequacy of pleadings and merits of the matter or correctness of the pleadings and the courts can also not insist for grounds of fraud as in Order VI Rule 4 CPC .

Further in paragraph No.32.2, it has been held as follows:-

“ 32.2 For curing any of the permissible defects, no court shall return the plaint more than once. This has been deprecated by this Court even in S.Parameswari V. Denis Lourdusamy , [(2011) 5 CTC 742] referred to above. In other words, retuning the plaint multiple times on multiple grounds is a sin in procedure and the Court/Registry needs to become adequately aware about it. In spite of the fact that the decision in S.Paramswari's case was pronounced a decade ago, even in this batch of cases this court has witnessed that some of our Courts and their registry continue to flout it.”

8. This court is able to see