The rejection of a plaint prior to filing is improper if based on grounds not established at that stage.

JUDGMENT 

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

The suit filed for declaration of title and possession and other allied reliefs by the plaintiff has also sought leave of the Court to sue as an indigent person.

2. Since the property and most of the defendants are within the jurisdiction of the Original side of the Madras High Court, suit has been laid on the Original side of the Madras High Court along with leave to sue the defendants who are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. When the Master tested the application for filing the suit as indigent person, he rejected that application and also made a passing reference that the Suit itself is barred by limitation. We place on record that the observation regarding the jurisdiction and the power conferred to a Master cannot have any bearing on the judicial decision by the Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application to sue as indigent person, the plaintiff has moved application before the learned single Judge, who considered it, received report from the District Collector, NTR District, Vijayawada and has granted leave to sue as indigent person.

5. The next stage for the plaintiff was to get leave to sue the defendants who were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court Original side jurisdiction. At that juncture, the 27th defendant and few other defendants had entered appearance and filed applications to reject the plaint in C.S.D.No.99888 of 2021. Meanwhile, there was also an application by the plaintiff to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of one of the defendants.

6. Be that as it may, the main crux of the appeal which is now under our consideration is that the learned single Judge while considering the application for leave to sue the defendants residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court Original side, also entertained the unnumbered application for rejection of plaint.

7. Further, regarding the observation made by the Master that the suit is itself barred by limitation, the learned single Judge had gone further considering the averments in the plaint and rejected the plaint even before it was taken on file. He has observed that the suit is barred by limitation, it is a second round of litigation and hence vexatious suit. Being aggrieved, the indigent plaintiff is before us.

8. Earlier when the matter came up for consideration, the Court has ordered paper publication for the unserved defendants in English, Hindi and Tamil edition of a Newspaper having pan India circulation. We are concerned only with regard to violation of procedure while rejecting the plaint even before it being taken on file and the reasoning given by the learned single Judge all of a sudden when it is a suit for declaration making semblance of right over the suit property and an allegation of fraud.

9. The plaint statement regarding limitation and cause of action apparently indicates there is a dispute which needs intervention of the Court for redressal. However, if the suit statements are incorrect and to be rejected, the stage is not while deciding the application for grant of leave to sue or before the suit is taken on file.

10. The observations, reasoning and entertaining an application yet to be unnumbered for the sake of rejection of the suit tantamount to foreclose the doors of justice to a litigant who had filed suit with some material which needs scrutiny. More so, a suit even before it being taken on file cannot be rejected considering the facts available beyond the plaint on the ground of vexatious litigation and limitation, which both are que