The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot substitute the statutory legal remedy for plaint rejection under the CPC.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to strike off the plaint in O.S. No.35 of 2022 on the file of 'the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur' [hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'] by the Defendant therein.

2. The Petitioner herein is the Defendant in the Suit in O.S.No.35 of

2022. The Respondents herein are the Plaintiffs therein. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The Plaintiffs filed the Original Suit against the Defendant seeking a decree of permanent injunction and a decree declaring the alleged Cancellation Deed dated October 04, 2017 [Document No.2113 of 2017, Sub-Registrar Office, Cheyyur] executed by the Plaintiffs cancelling the Sale Deed dated July 04, 2008, as null and void.

4. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Meenakshi Ammal and one Selvaraj. They executed a General Power of Attorney Deed in favour of Arumugam (second plaintiff). Thereafter, the Power of Attorney Holder / second Plaintiff sold the Suit Properties to the first Plaintiff on February 20, 1994. Before the execution of the Sale Deed itself, the Plaintiff's family was in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties under the Sale Agreement dated February 20, 1994 renewed on May 26, 2004. The Defendant in order to extract money from the Plaintiffs and usurp the Suit Properties, with the influence of police, forcefully obtained the Cancellation Deed from the Plaintiffs on October 04, 2017. The said Cancellation Deed is void. While so, the Defendant made an attempt to interfere with the Plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on June 24, 2020 and once again on July 25, 2020. Hence, the Plaintiffs filed the Suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendant and also declaration that the Cancellation Deed dated October 04, 2017 is null and void.

5. The case of the Defendant is that the Suit Properties were allotted to the Defendant in a family partition held in the year 1995, pursuant to which, the Defendant is in possession and enjoyment thereof. Revenue records in respect of the Suit Properties stand in the name of the Defendant. Plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The Suit is a clear abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the Defendant sought to strike off the plaint in O.S. No.35 of 2022.

6. Mr.R.Suriya Prakash, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Defendant would submit that the Plaintiff falsely obtained Sale Deed dated July 04, 2008 in respect of the Suit Properties. Subsequently, he himself cancelled the same vide Cancellation Deed dated October 04, 2017. However, now the Plaintiff is falsely contending that the Cancellation Deed was obtained by the Defendant without his valid consent. He would further submit that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The Suit is an abuse of process of law filed only with a view to harass the Defendant. Stating so, he would pray to allow the Civil Revision Petition, invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India and strike off the plaint.

7. Per contra, Mr.S.Sriram learned Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned Counsel on record for the Respondents / Plaintiffs would reiterate the plaint averments and submit that the Plaintiff purchased the Suit Properties vide Sale Deed dated July 4, 2008 and was in peaceful enjoyment thereof. But the Defendant misused his influence with police and obtained the Cancellation Deed dated October 04, 2017. Hence, the Plaintiff left with no other option approached the Court seeking a declaration that the Cancellation Deed is null and void. The Civil Revision Petition does not have any merits. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. He would rely on K.Valarmathi -vs- Kumaresan, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 985 in support of his submission.

8. This Court has considered both sides' sub