IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CMP.No.28788 of 2025

1.Roshan Dominic Jude Rayen

2. Mrs.Lourdes Joavani ... Petitioners Vs.

1.Mrs.Bala Rajeswari

2.Dr.V.Alexander

3. Dr.S.Vincent

4.A.Rajkumar

5.Ravindaran Jacob ...Respondents PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 in IA No.6 of 2025 in OS No.6721 of 2023 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the plaint in OS.No.6721 of 2023 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC as being barred by law, devoid of cause of action and abuse of process of court.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi For Respondents : Mr.Paul Bennett for M/s.T.K.S.Gandhi (Vakalat Sr.No.45915/2025)

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/ defendants 1 and

2 seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from any manner using Flat Nos. 1 and 2 of the apartment complex described in the suit “A” schedule for commercial use either for running a dental clinic or for other commercial purpose. The respondents also sought for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to remove X-Ray and other medical apparatus kept in the suit “B” Schedule property. They also sought for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to remove all kinds of encroachment over common passage in suit “A” Schedule property. Further, a mandatory injunction was sought for directing the official defendants 3 and 4 to take necessary steps against the petitioners in putting suit property for commercial use by running a dental clinic.

3. It was the case of the respondents that the petitioners are owners of flat Nos. 1 and 2 described in the plaint schedule and they converted the same for commercial use by running a dental clinic thereon. It was their specific case that building was a residential complex and the petitioners had no right to convert the same for commercial use. It was also stated that petitioners illegally encroached the common area described in the plaint.

4. The petitioners herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d)

of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. It was the case of the petitioners that the respondents admitted that they were the owners of the flats described in the plaint and hence, the relief of injunction as sought for was barred by Specific Relief Act. It was also stated that the subject property stands in a locality classified as a mixed zone for residential and commercial purpose. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to run a dental clinic. It was also stated that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try issues which have to be considered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. It was further stated by the petitioners that by creating illusory cause of action, the plaintiffs have filed a suit with bald allegations and therefore, the same shall be rejected.

5. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit and resisted the said application. The trial court, by impugned order, dismissed the petition for rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the suit property is lying in a zone which was earmarked as a mixed zone for residential and commercial purpose and therefore, the prayer sought for by the respondents restraining the petitioners from running a dental clinic in the said property is not at all maintainable. He further submitted that running a dental clinic in a flat meant for residential use will not amount to utilizing the same for commercial purpose. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case o