CRP/2222/2026 of S.Chandran Vs K.Saraswathi

CRP No. 2222 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 2222 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 9683 OF 2026 S.Chandran S/o. Late Subbiah, No.18/3, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, GRB Sai Nivas, Siva Garden, K.G.Bose Nagar, New Siddhi Vinayagar Kovi Street, Irugur, Coimbatore-641 402. ..Petitioner(s) Vs K.Saraswathi D/o. Late. P.Kumaravelu W/o. S.Chandran No. S3, D Block, 5th Street Jayam Kaveri Lakshmi Homes Near Bharat Petrol Bunk New Perangalathur Chengalpattu Dist Chennai 63 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 29.04.2025 passed in IA No. 3 of 2024 in OS No. 119 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Dist rict Court, Chengalpattu. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Balasubramaniam For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Baskar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2222 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER Challenging the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed in IA No. 3 of 2024 in OS No. 119 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, the defendant has preferred this revision. 2. He filed an application before the trial court to return t he plaint stating that the alleged recovery of money claim made by the respondent / wife was not settled, arose within Chennai jurisdiction and based on the undertaking letter dated 15.06.2023 the respondent / wife has initiated the said suit. Even assuming that the document was true and the stamp papers are purchased at Coimbatore, therefore, the jurisdiction arose only at Coimbatore not at Perungalathur where the present suit was filed. Therefore, he prays t o return the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The said application was dismissed by the trial judge on hearing both sides stating that now the suit is at the stage of framing issues and jurisdiction also can be decided at the time of completi on of the trial mainly with regard to the panchayath said to be held on 15.06.2023 is unde r the dispute, whether the panchayath was held or not is to be proved only af ter the completion of the trial. Therefore, the reason assigned by the defenda nt was not sustainable, accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same , the defendant has preferred this revision. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2222 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that even assuming that there was a panchayath held, based on the alleged underta king letter dated 15.06.2023 and a bare perusal of the stamp papers would reflect that the stamp papers was purchased at Coimbatore and not at Perungalathur or Chennai. Therefore, based on that letter, the jurisdiction arose only at Coimbatore and not at Chennai. The fact also reveals that the revi sion petitioner / defendant not admitted the undertaking letter dated 15.06.2023, therefore, he is ready to take all defence. At this stage, for that reason the pl aint cannot be returned now the suit is ripe for trial and at this stage he has come forward with application. To that effect the findings of the trial court requires no interference. Liberty is granted to the defendant to take all the defence befor e the trial court. The trial judge is directed to dispose of the case within a peri od of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MTL https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2222 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. MTL To 1. The Principal District Court, Chengalpattu. CRP No. 2222 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 9683 OF 2026 20-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis