Civil courts must maintain jurisdiction in disputes involving arbitration agreements unless explicitly ousted by applicable law.

Prayer:- The application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to reject the Plaint filed in C.S.No.28 of 2025 pending on the file of this Court as being devoid of any cause of action under Order VII Rule XI of the Civil Procedure Code.

For Applicant(s): Mr.Nataraj for M/s.Anirudh A Sriram For Respondent(s): Mr.M.L.Joseph for M/s.Chennai Law Association.

ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicant to reject the plaint in C.S.No.28 of 2025 as the devoid of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

2.According to the applicant he is the defendant in the main suit filed for the relief of declaration in respect of memorandum of understanding dated 22.10.2021 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant proceeding with arbitration under the memorandum of understanding and also declaration that the defendant is in unlawful custody of the original title deeds pertaining to the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the original documents pertaining to the suit schedule property.

2.1.The present dispute is covered by the scope of nature of the agreement arising out of memorandum of understanding signed and agreed between the parties on 22.10.2021. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected in the light of the arbitration clause. Therefore, the relief sought for in the present suit seeking declaration to declare the memorandum of understanding is null and void and for other reliefs of the permanent injunction are not valid and unknown to law.

2.2.The defendant is engaging the business of real estate and got acquaintance with the first respondent / plaintiff and his family members. While so, the first respondent / plaintiff approached the petitioner for financial assistance and he also offered to lend money on security. On 13.06.2005, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as loan to the first respondent and the first respondent deposited his original title deeds in respect of the sale deed bearing Document No.957/1948 on the file of Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet and the memorandum of records on family arrangement dated 07.11.1994 and other original documents and the said documents are still under the custody of the petitioner. First respondent also executed a promissory note dated 13.06.2005 and a letter dated 13.06.2005 acknowledging the receipt of loan and the creation of equitable mortgages, by depositing original title deeds. Loans have been continuously paid from the year 2005 till 2016 by the petitioner to the first respondent in furtherance to the memorandum of understanding. The petitioner trusted and believed the words of the first respondent that he would honour these commitments and monies would be repaid to the petitioner.

2.3. The first respondent and the petitioner agreed that the equitable mortgage created on the house property shall stand as security for the continuous loan transactions and based on the collateral, the petitioner gave additional funds to the tune of Rs.1,31,44,460/- and the agreed interest is 18% per annum. The charge on the property has already been created and the respondent remain evasive and he did not get any response from the first respondent as about the plan and statutory approvals and no documents were handed over to the petitioner. The first respondent and the petitioner entered into memorandum of understanding dated 22.10.2021. As per the memorandum of understanding the first respondent had admitted acknowledgment of the title outstanding due towards