SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J
Mrs.Saraswathi – Appellant
Versus
Mrs.Kavithamani – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.5275 of 2025 | CMP.No.26501 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.S.Seshadri
For the Respondents: Ms.Aswini Devi.K for R4 to R9 Additional Government Pleader

The court affirmed the allowance of a separate suit despite an ongoing partition suit, emphasizing the provisions of Section 10 of CPC regarding res sub judice.

Headnote:The Civil Revision Petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to strike off the plaint in OS.No.1172 of 2025. The petitioners filed a suit for partition, claiming the 1st respondent’s title is in dispute, which leads to the filing of a separate suit by the respondent. The court found the suit for partition pending, allowing the 1st respondent to pursue her separate declaration suit. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition allowing liberty for appropriate applications for stay.

Table of Content
1. ongoing partition suit allows for subsequent declaration suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. pending suits do not prevent filing of separate suits under section 10. (Para 4)
3. court dismissed appeal while allowing for future applications. (Para 5)

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the plaint filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration of her title and injunction.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they filed a suit for partition in OS.No.312 of 2019 on the file of 1st Additional District Court, Coimbatore against the respondents 2 and 3. Subsequently, the 1st respondent, who purchased the portion of the property from Dineshbabu/2nd respondent herein, was also included in the suit. The petitioners also sought for a prayer to declare the sale deed in favour of the 1st Respondent was null and void. The trial in the suit is already commenced and P.W.1 is in box. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent filed a separate suit in respect of the property purchased by her from 2nd respondent seeking declaration of her title and injunction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the title of the 1st respondent is very much under dispute in a suit for partition filed by the petitioners, the 1st respondent ought not have filed the present suit. Hence, the plaint in the present suit shall be struck off from the file.

4. Admittedly, the suit for partition and other reliefs filed by the petitioners are still pending and no decree has been passed in the suit. In such circumstances, there is no bar for the 1st respondent to file a separate suit seeking declaration, injunction and incidental relief.

5. If the petitioners feel the issue involved in both the suits are one and the same, the provisions of Section 10 of CPC would get attracted, it is always open to them to file appropriate application before the trial court seeking stay of the subsequent suit on the ground of doctrine of res sub judice. I do not find anything to strike off the plaint filed by the first respondent. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to move appropriate application for stay of the suit, if so advised. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top