IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and CMP No. 9574 of 2022 Nisha Agrawal ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. E.S.Ramakrishna

2. E.S.Giribabu

3. Meenakshi

4. Sujatha ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This petition to strike off the Plaint filed in OS No.163 of 2022 on the file of the XXIV Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.AR. Karthik Lakshmanan For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Prabhu (R1 & R2)

No appearance (R3 & R4)

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the Plaint filed in OS No.163 of 2022 on the file of the XXIV Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 herein had instituted a suit seeking to declare the sale deed registered and executed in favour of the fourth respondent and the petitioner herein as illegal, sham, nominal, null and void and not binding on them. He would submit that one Mr.E.Kumarasamy had died without any issues leaving behind a Will dated 09.07.1996 whereby life interest was created in favour of the third respondent and after her life time, the respondents 1 and 2 to absolutely bequeath the same. On the strength of the Will, the respondents 1 and 2 had instituted the suit. He would submit that the suit is clearly barred by law. As the said Will without being probated by a competent Court cannot be used to establish the rights as claimed by them. The said suit being without a cause of action is liable to be struck down and hence, the petitioner had filed the present revision seeking to strike off the plaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1998 3 SCC 573 to contend that this Court has ample power to stop proceedings summarily to prevent the time of public and the Court from being wasted. He would submit that in the facts of the present case, without the Will being probated the respondents 1 and 2 do not have any right to institute a suit for declaration.

Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

4. Countering his arguments, Mr.E.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner has a remedy by taking out an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the very same ground that he had raised in the present Revision. Without exhausting the remedy available to him, he had approached this Court by filing the present Revision. He would submit that the suit is not barred by the provisions of any law. He would further submit that if the suit is struck off in the present proceedings, the respondent/ plaintiff would lose his valuable right of appeal available under Section 96 of CPC and in that context, he had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in

2026 SCC OnLine SC 143. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the revision.

5. I have considered the submission of either side and have also gone through the materials available on record.

6. The grounds on which the present Petition had been filed seeking to strike off the plaint is that there is no cause of action that is available to the respondents 1 and 2 to institute the suit as the Will basis on which they claim title to the property has not been probated by them. Hence, without probating the Will, the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, as a legatee right accrues only if the said Will is probated or Letters of Administration is granted with respect to the said Will.

7. It is true that without probating a Will, a suit cannot be instituted But, in such circumstances, whether this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can strike out plaint is the issue that has to be decided in the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgme