C.R.P.(NPD).No.3482 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.09.2023

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.No.3482 of 2023

and C.M.P.No.21682 of 2023

1.Sanjay @ Sanjay Sait

2.Manisha

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.R.V.Venkatesan

2.S.Karthikeyan

3.S.Muruganandam

4.Marimuthu

... Respondents

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article

227of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal

order, dated 01.08.2023 passed by the III-Additional City Civil Court,

Chennai in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.2731 of 2019 .

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Jagannathan

O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners herein

challenging the order, dated 01.08.2023 passed by the III-Additional

City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.2731 of 2019

.

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3482 of 2023

2. According to the petitioners, they have filed a petition under

Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint in the

above suit. The petitioners would state that the plaintiff had filed the

suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- based on the promisory

note written in Tamil. He would further submit that his name and his

father's name is incorrect and that he is not conversant in Tamil

language. The contention of the plaintiff is that he and his wife had

come down to Chennai and borrowed money from the 1^st respondent

in Chennai when they were residing at Pudukottai. The petitioners

claim is that they never came to Chennai to meet the 1^st respondent

and only to grab on the suit scheduled property, the suit has been filed

by the petitioner. The 1^st respondent does not have the capacity to lend

Rs.80,00,000/-. The property at Pattukottai is worth more than 1.75

Crore and no documents have been filed in support of his claim and

therefore, he prayed for rejection of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff/1^st respondent had filed a counter stating that

there is no legal and substantial ground to file such a petition under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the same has to be dismissed when the

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3482 of 2023

petitioner has filed the above application without mentioning any

specific grounds mentioned in Rule 11 or any other valid grounds for

rejection of the said plaint.

4. According, to the petitioner, the rejection of plaint is

sought under Order VII CPC, the petitioner herein has not specifically

stated the proper provision under which he claims for rejection of the

plaint. However, the petitioner attempting to raise a ground regarding

the cause of action as mentioned in the said application. Further, when

there is no legal grounds and averments, the petitioners at the time of

borrowing the money, they have mentioned their name as per the

above suit and now they cannot escape from the clutches of law from

the legal liability to pay the borrowed money. The petitioners further

submitted that they never came to Chennai and no documents like

PAN card and Aadhaar card are filed along with the plaint which is

totally not required and that the petitioners submits that they have to

adduce evidence to show that the 1^st respondent has got the capacity to

lend such a huge amount of cash and without any security he would

have given a huge amount when it is known to him that the petitioners

are owning a house at Pattukottai, worth Rs.1.75 Crores is false and

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3482 of 2023

unworthy in basis and that their claim is not correct.

5. Further, all these are the facts which are to be decided by a

way of full fledged trial by adducing appropriate evidence and

therefore, the same has to be dismissed. Further, he has stated that he

has arranged this money through various sources, but, no evidence

was produced along with the plaint. Only at the time o