Madras High Court
G.Janobai vs V.N.Devadoss on 15 June, 2015
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P (PD) No.983 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.G.Janobai 2.M.K.Deenadayalu 3.M.K.Thulasidharan 4.M/s.Murali Brick Works 5.Mrs.J.Vijayalakshmi 6.M.J.Sathya Narayana 7.Mrs.Geetha Saraswathy ...Petitioners vs. V.N.Devadoss ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Poonamallee dated 16.08.2010 in I.A.No.672 of 2008 in O.S.No.127 of 2006. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Viswanatha Rao For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh --------- ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2.This revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The order came to be passed on 16.08.2010. The said order was passed after a lapse of 8 years from the date of filing of the suit. After filing the revision, another 4 years have been allowed to lapse.
3. The only ground on which rejection of plaint was sought for is that the suit filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale was in respect of a property which was taken over by the State under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Now the said Act is not in force as it has been repealed. The question of the title vesting with the Government or the same remaining with the owner, depends upon the fact whether possession was taken by the Government in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Such a question cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In fact, the contention of the petitioner is not with reference to the maintainability on the ground of absence of jurisdiction or absence of cause of action or any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. It pertains to the realm of consideration of merits of the case as to whether the petitioner (vendor under the agreement) could be compelled to execute a sale deed as per the commitment made in the agreement.
4. It is under the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it will be totally against the interest of justice to allow this matter to be prolonged in such a stage blocking further proceedings in the suit any further. Hence, the revision deserves to be dismissed. At the same time, it shall be open to the petitioner in the revision petition to raise all grounds of defence in the trial of the suit and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court has dismissed the revision.
5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the petitioner shall have every right to raise all the grounds of defence in the main suit. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.06.2015 Index: Yes Internet: Yes gpa To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Poonamallee.
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J., gpa C.R.P (PD) No.983 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 15.06.2015