Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J
Rajam D/o.Late Subramaniya Gurukkal – Appellant
Versus
Nagaiyan S/o.Late Subramaniya Gurukkal – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CRP No.4503 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Advocate for M/s.D.Sathya
For the Respondents:

Courts must provide an opportunity to respond to queries before returning a plaint, ensuring fair legal process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Revision Petition - Suit for partition exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court - Revision petitioner/plaintiff's suit was returned without an opportunity to argue, which is not sustainable in law - Court directed to give opportunity to clarify queries in open Court. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5)

(B) Jurisdiction - Courts must hear arguments before dismissing petitions or returning plaints - The lack of opportunity to present one's case before the Court undermines legal principles of fairness and justice. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition but the trial Court found it exceeded jurisdiction and returned the plaint without allowing the plaintiff to clarify queries.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court's order lacks sustainability as no opportunity was provided to the plaintiff to address jurisdictional queries raised by the Court.

Issues: Whether the trial Court was correct in returning the plaint without allowing the revision petitioner the opportunity to clarify the queries raised.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to be heard is fundamental; a Court must provide an opportunity to parties to present their cases in response to queries raised, particularly where jurisdiction is concerned.

Result: The order was set aside.

ORDER

Challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Memo C.F.R.No.1236 of 2025 in O.S.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present civil revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of

2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur, for partition. After hearing the arguments, judgment was reserved on 28.07.2025. Thereafter, the Court below, vide order dated 07.08.2025, has observed as follows:

“suo motu re-opened by the Court. The perusal of Ex.B9 and Ex.X1, guideline value certificates issued by the Registration Department, this Court finds that the suit properties value exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction. The land in Survey No.6/2 is valued at Rs.3,50,000/- per acre, and Survey Nos.16/16 and 16/8 (renumbered as 16/1) at Rs.225/- per sq.ft., bringing the total to Rs.16,91,953.35/-. The plaintiffs 1/5^th share is valued at Rs.3,38,390.67/-. While she has shown it as Rs.95,000/-, which grossly undervalued. Accordingly, the plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the proper jurisdictional Court. - Returned.”

3. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a memo dated

11.08.2025 seeking to reopen the suit and an opportunity to be given to the revision petitioner/plaintiff to represent regarding the queries mentioned in the return order. The Court below returned the memo vide order dated 18.08.2025 with the following endorsement:

“The Court finds that the suit filed by the plaintiff exceeds jurisdiction. Hence, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASM.JOTHIRAMAN, JRajam D/o.Late Subramaniya Gurukkal – AppellantVersusNagaiyan S/o.Late Subramaniya Gurukkal – RespondentCivil Revision Petition | CRP No.4503 of 2025

Courts must provide an opportunity to respond to queries before returning a plaint, ensuring fair legal process.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J
Rajam D/o.Late Subramaniya Gurukkal – Appellant
Versus
Nagaiyan S/o.Late Subramaniya Gurukkal – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CRP No.4503 of 2025