Madras High Court
)N.Saravansankar vs )Piyarijohn on 13 March, 2017
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.03.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.R.P(MD)No.SR4580 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2048 of 2017
1)N.Saravansankar
2)Haripriya ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs
-vs-
1)Piyarijohn
2)Koush Ibrahim
3)Jaffer siddique sait
4)A.Anif
5)J.Sheikfarid
6)Minor shajahan
(Minor represented through 1st respondent Piyarijohn)
7)H.Hazanbanu
8)H.Noorbanu
9)Meer kulab thazthahir @ babajohn
10)Abdul sathar
11)M.Hussain Mohammed
12)M.Nallathambi
13)C.Rajammal
14)C.Chandran
15)C.Sakthivel
16)C.Samy
17)V.Shanthi
18)B.Devi
19)T.Meenakshi
20)Sub Registrar,
Registrar office,
Nagalnayakan patti,
Dindigul town.
21)Sub Registrar,
Registrar office,
Kannivadi,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents/defendants
Prayer in C.R.P(MD)No.SR4580 of 2017: Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint filed by the 1 to 21
respondents/plaintiffs herein in O.S.No.102 of 2015 on the file of Additional
District Judge, Dindigul.
Prayer in C.M.P(MD)No.2048 of 2017: Petition filed under Section 151 of
the Civil Procedure Code, to dispense with the production of the certified
copy of the plaint in O.S.No.102 of 2015 on the file of the Additional
District Judge, Dindigul.
!For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvaraj
For Respondent:
:ORDER
This petition is to dispense with the certified copy of the plaint in the revision petition.
2.This Court to ascertain whether the certified copy of the plaint is warranted, requested the counsel for the petitioners to submit the grounds of revision petition and convince the court how it is maintainable.
3.Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs suppressing certain facts, more particularly, alienation of the property by the 4th defendant himself and further submitted that there is no cause of action in the suit as far as the 3rd and 4th items of property mentioned in the suit schedule. Therefore, there is no necessity for the revision petitioners to undergo the ordeal of trial, hence they have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution directly to strike off the plaint.
4.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners also cited the order of the Hon'ble High Court in CRP(PD)No.923 of 2013 dated 09.10.2013(N.A.Chinnasamy vs. S.Vellingirinathan), wherein, the learned Judge has observed as under:-
''51. In the instant case, a perusal of the averments made in the cause of action, para of the plaint by the respondent / plaintiff could not be construed as cause of action, in the eye of law, to maintain the suit, for the relief sought for in the plaint. Having executed the registered sale deed, 12 years after the execution of the sale deed, the respondent / plaintiff has come forward with the present suit, by raising an unsustainable plea, that on the date of executing the deed, he was thinking that it was a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. 12 years after executing the deed, he has raised such an unreasonable plea, hence, such an abuse must be deprecated. After executing the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar's Office, as per the earlier registered agreement for sale, it is not open to the respondent / plaintiff to raise a self contradictory plea stating that he had signed in the Sub-Registrar's Office in various papers, 12 years later in the last week of June 2012, he came to know that it was a sale deed, though he was thinking that it was only a mortgage deed, for which he received a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- and interest was paid without getting any receipt or acknowledgement, saying that the petitioners / defendants were not in the habit of issuing receipt. Such unsustainable, frivolous plea against the registered document executed by him would show that the respondent / plaintiff has not come forward with clean hands and also spoken the truth in the plaint. The self contradictory version of the respondent / plaintiff, which is against law, cannot be construed as cause of action to maintain the suit. In a case of vexatious litigation, it would be the solemn duty of this Court to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to struck off the plaint, which contains improper and unreasonable pleadings of the respondent / plaintiff, which could not be accepted by any reasonable prudent man. The suit has been filed after 12 years, after executing the sale deed is hopelessly barred by limitation and the respondent is not entitled to raise a plea of date of knowledge, as he was party to the sale deed.
52. It cannot be disputed that plaint could be struck off only in the rarest of cases, when there is clear abuse of process of law and Court, however, the same has to be decided only based on the pleadings and the admission made by the plaintiff and not based on the written statement and when the court comes to a conclusion that there is no possibility for the plaintiff to succeed and filing such a suit is also an abuse of process of law and the Court. In this Revision, all these aspects are available against the respondent / plaintiff, hence, this Court has no hesitation to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution and struck off the plaint, to meet the ends of justice.''
5.I do not see any factual parity with the judgment cited and the case in hand. Here is a case, where there is a prima facie cause of action shown against the revision petitioners who is arrayed as defendants 14 and 15. The written statement has also been filed by them as early as on 09.06.2016. If at all the revision petitioners are really aggrieved that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, they could very well approach the Trial Court by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 and convince the Court. They need not have approached this Court under Article 227, which confers power of superintendence to the High Court over the Subordinate Courts.
6.Considering the pleadings as found in the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and there is a cause of action to seek share in the suit schedule properties including Items 3 and 4. If there is any contra evidence, it is for the defendants to place before the Trial Court and prove their right or to disprove the case of the plaintiffs. They cannot bye-pass the procedure laid down under law and torpedo the claim of the plaintiffs by way of revision petition under Article 227 without invoking the other legal remedy available to him.
Hence, C.R.P.SR(MD)No.4580 of 2017 and C.R.P(MD)No.2048 of 2017 are dismissed. No costs.
To The Additional District Judge, Dindigul..