Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
B.Mahalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CRP No. 2820 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.A.C.Manibharathi
The trial court cannot dismiss a suit without hearing evidence, emphasizing due process for encroachments.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - The trial Court rejected the plaint without proper evidence; the petitioners challenged its maintainability, stating that an encroacher can only be dispossessed by due process of law. The court noted the plaintiffs' claims supported by documents on lawful possession. Additionally, the court ruled that the statutory bar did not impede the plaintiffs from seeking an injunction against disturbance of their possession absent due process. (Paras 3, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction Issues - Trial Court must not conduct a roving enquiry at the stage of maintainability, and a thorough examination of evidence is essential before rejection - Acknowledgment that even encroachment requires due process. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to set aside a trial court's order rejecting their suit for a permanent injunction against the Greater Chennai Corporation, alleging lawful possession of property.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court did not have sufficient grounds for dismissal based solely on maintainability; the suit should proceed for adjudication.
Issues: The key issue concerned the right to seek an injunction against removal of an encroachment if due process is not followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the trial court erred in prematurely dismissing the suit without evidentiary consideration and reaffirmed the principle of due process for eviction.
Result: The civil revision petition is allowed, and the order of the trial Court is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court must ensure evidence is considered before rejecting a suit. (Para 1 , 3 , 10) |
| 2. argument against premature dismissal without evidence. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. support for lawful possession documented. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 4. statutory provisions for encroachment removal must respect due process. (Para 7 , 8) |
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in OS SR No.7138 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai by allowing the present CRP.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.A.C.Manibharathi Standing Counsel For Corporation Of Chennai
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in OS SR No.7138 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.Heard Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.C.Manibharathi, learned Standing counsel for the Chennai Corporation.
3.The trial Court has rejected the suit even at the stage of maintainability /numbering of the suit invoking Order VII Rule 11 (a) r/w 151 C.P.C.
4.Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Court at the stage of numbering cannot conduct any roving enquiry and pass any order touching the merits of the suit. In this regard, the learned counsel would take me through the plaint and also document that have been filed in support of the plaint seeking relief of Permanent Injunction to restrain the Corporation and its officials, from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs except by due process of law.
5.I find that the plaintiffs allege in the plaint that they are in lawful possession of the property and in support of the factum of possession, they have also filed Ration Card, Electricity bills and also the registration certificate, which has been issued by the Central Government which refers to the suit property.
6.The learned counsel would therefore state that the court having found that even an encroacher can be dispossessed only by due process of law, the Court ought not to have rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) r/w 151 C.P.C.
7.The learned Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation would state that there is a statutory bar under Section 149 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act , 1998. He further states that the petitioners are rank encroachers and the Corporation is empowered to evict the encroachment with or without notice under Section 128 of the and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any opportunity as well. The learned counsel would therefore state that there is no error or infirmity in the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court. Section 149 that has been relied on by the standing counsel for the respondent is extracted for easy reference:
" No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this part required to be decided or dealt with by the Government or the Commissioner."
The relief that is sought for in the suit is only for permanent injunction and not disturbing the possession of the petitioners, except by due process of law.
8.The learned standing counsel refers to Section 128 which enables the Commissioner to remove, without any notice, any movable property namely temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth etc., whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale and under Section 128 (b) when if it is immovable structure, whether permanent or of temporary, then the encroachment can be removed only after issuing a show cause notice for such removable, returnable within a period of seven days.
9.Even from the photographs that have been relied on by the learned standing counsel, it is clearly seen that the encroachment is an immovable property, with an asbestos shed above concrete structure. Therefore, necessarily the contention of the respondents that no notice is req
