Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
P.Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
Sujatha Agencies Rep by its Proprietor R.Sujatha – Respondent
CMP NO. 6013 OF 2026|IA No.3 of 2023 in OS No.3480 of 2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to trial court jurisdiction dismissal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on pecuniary jurisdiction and decree timing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court upholds dismissal, directs expeditious disposal. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in IA No.3 of 2023 in OS No.3480 of 2021 dated 21.09.2023 on the file of the XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants 3 and 4 have preferred the present revision petition.
2. The petitioners / defendants filed application before the trial court to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC stating that the Court has no jurisdiction due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and only the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. The said application was dismissed by the trial judge by elaborately discussing about the jurisdictional aspect. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 3 and 4 have preferred the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the claim comes around Rs.4,66,000/- for which the trial court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and only the Commercial Court have to decide the issue.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff submits that the ex parte decree was passed on 17.11.2021 and thereafter only, the constitution of Commercial Court was implemented, as per circular dated 06.12.2021. On the date of the implementing of the Commercial Court, the suit was not pending before the Court and it was already decreed.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that it is only a ex parte decree. But it is a decree. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that as per direction given by the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.51000/2025, six months time was granted to dispose of the case and notice also served to the revision petitioner and they were aware of the said direction.
6. Instead of cooperating with the trial proceedings, they come forward with the false claim. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application which requires no interference. Hence, the respondents are directed to cooperate with the proceedings and already six months time was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the trial judge shall also consider the said time limit and dispose of the case as early as possible.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
