CRP/1190/2026 of P.Sujatha Vs Sujatha Agencies

CRP No. 1190 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 1190 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 6013 OF 2026 1. P.Sujatha 2. Y.P.Shiravan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Sujatha Agencies Rep by its Proprietor R.Sujatha, Rep by its Proprietrix R.Sujatha Having office at No 60, New No 82, Collectorate Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. 2. M/s. Saravana Stores Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd. No.28, Ranganathan Street T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Y.Pallakudurai (deceased) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.02.2026 made in IA No.8 of 2026 in OS No.3480 of 2021 on the file of the XXIII Assistant City Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1190 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.V.Prakash For Respondent(s): Ms.G.Jaya Shruthi For R1 Mr.N.V.Prakash For R2 ORDER Challenging the impugned order passed in IA No.8 of 2026 in OS No.3480 of 2021 dated 06.02.2026 on the file of the XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants 3 and 4 have preferred the present re vision petition. 2. The petitioners / defendants filed application before the trial court to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC stating that the Cour t has no jurisdiction due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and only the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. The said application was dismisse d by the trial judge by elaborately discussing about the jurisdictional aspect. Aggr ieved 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 c laim 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1190 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff submits tha t 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 di spose of the case and notice also served to the revision petitioner and the y were aware of the said direction. 6. Instead of cooperating with the trial proceedings, they come forw ard 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 wa s granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the trial judge shall also c onsider the said time limit and dispose of the case as early as possible. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1190 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 06-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MTL To 1. The XXIII Assistant City Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1190 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. MTL CRP No. 1190 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 6013 OF 2026 06-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis