C.R.P.No.3915 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.3915 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.20488 of 2022

Vanitha Ramani

... Petitioner

Versus

1. T.Mahendran

2. B.Vijayakumar

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, seeking for the direction to set aside the impugned

order dated 28.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2022 in O.S.No.14 of

2022 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,

Cheyyur, reject the plaint in O.S.No.14 of 2022.

For Petitioner

: Ms.S.Raghunathan

for Mr.S.L.Sudarsanam

For R1

: Mr.C.Sivanesan

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated

28.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2022 on the

file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur,

rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.14 of 2022.

Page No.1 of 14

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

C.R.P.No.3915 of 2022

2.The revision petitioner is the first defendant and the first

defendant has instituted a suit for permanent injunction. The revision

petitioner/first defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.163

of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint filed by the

first respondent in O.S.No.14 of 2022. The Interlocutory Application was

dismissed and thus, the revision petitioner has chosen to file the present

civil revision petition before this Court.

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the

first instance contended that no opportunity was granted to the revision

petitioner to argue the Interlocutory Application filed under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC and thus, the matter is to be remanded back to the Trial

Court for re-consideration. In this context, the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner drew attention of this Court with reference to the e-

courts proceedings, where the Interlocutory Application was adjourned on

several occasions. Again, it was posted finally on 28.09.2022, the revision

petitioner/first defendant filed a petition under Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC

seeking adjournment. The Trial Court recording the fact that the

Interlocutory Application was adjourned on several occasions, dismissed

Page No.2 of 14

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

C.R.P.No.3915 of 2022

the petition and thereafter, passed an order in the Interlocutory

Application on merits on 28.09.2022.

4.Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a

submission that the order in the Interlocutory Application was passed

without hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner. He also made a submission, on merits that there is no cause of

action for institution of the suit for injunction and the said ground has not

been considered by the Trial Court while passing orders under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent objected

the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner by stating that

right from the beginning, the revision petitioner/first defendant is

attempting to drag on the proceedings one way or other. They have not

filed any counter in the Interlocutory Application filed by the plaintiff and

filed I.A.No.163 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking

adjournment on several occasions. Despite the fact that the Trial Court

granted several opportunities to the parties to argue the matter, the

Page No.3 of 14

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

C.R.P.No.3915 of 2022

revision petitioner/first defendant was going on filing petition for

adjournment and finally, the Court passed an order and thus, the present

Civil Revision Petition is to be rejected.

6.It is needless to state that the parties to the suit are bound to co-

operate for the disposal of the Interlocutory Application or the suit as the

case may be. Ill-motives of the