CRP/4125/2022 of Palayan (Died) Vs V. Chandrasekar
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page1 of 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 08.04.2026
PRONOUNCED ON :
30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.21463 of 2022
Palayan (Died)
1. Mohanasundari D/o. Palayan, No. 3, Ellamman
Koil Street, East Ayanambakkam, Chennai -
600 095.
2. Usha
D/o. Palayan, N. 573, James Complex, Railway
station raod, Putlur, Tiruallur Taluk and
District.
3. Murali
S/o. Palayan, No. 4, Ellamman Koil Street, East
Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
4. Ellammal
D/o. Palayan, No. 4, Ellamman Koil Street, East
Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
5. Venkatesan
S/o. Palayan, No. 4, Ellamman Koil Street, East
Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
6. Ramu
S/o. Palayan, No. 4, Ellamman Koil Street, East
Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
7. Lakshmi
D/o. Palayan, No. 4, Ellamman Koil Street, East
Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page2 of 10
(Petitioners 1 to 7 are represented by their
Power Agent R.C. Harsha Vardhan, No. AK.
40, TAS Enclave, 10th Main Road Ext, Shanthi
Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040)
(Cause title accepted and petitioners are
represented by their Power of Attorney Agent
Mr.R.C.Harsha Vardhan vide Court order dated
28.11.2022 made in C.M.P.Nos.20227 &
20229/2022 in C.R.P.Sr.No.120287/2022)
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. V. Chandrasekar
S/o. varadarajulu, No. 2-A, Agraharam Street,
East Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
2. V. Dillibabu
S/o. varadarajulu, No. 2-D, Agraharam Street,
East Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
3. V. Balakrishnan
S/o. varadarajulu, No. 2-C, Agraharam Street,
East Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
4. V. Sundaramurthy
S/o. varadarajulu, No. 2-D, Agraharam Street,
East Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
5. V. Anandan
S/o. Varadarajulu, No. 2-D, Agraharam Street,
East Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
6. Govindammal @ Rubini
D/o. varadarajulu, No. 3/13, 2-D, Agraharam
Street, East Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600
095.
7. Kasthuri
D/o. Varadarajulu, No. 2-A, Agraharam Street,
East Ayanambakkam, Chennai - 600 095.
(Respondents 1 to 7 are represented by their
Power Agent S. Sathyanarayanan, No. 52/44,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page3 of 10
Perumal Koil Street, East Ayanambakkam,
Chennai - 600 095)
8. Bhuvaneswari
W/o. V. Devaraj, Agraharam Street, Ellamman
Koil Street, East Ayanambakkam, Chennai -
600 095. Chennai - 600 095.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, praying to strike off the plaint in OS.No. 32 of 2017 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Karthikeyan
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V.Seshachari
(For RR1 to R7)
R8 – Not ready in notice
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in
OS.No. 32 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.
2. Heard Mr. M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
respondents 1 to 7 had initiated a suit for declaration of their title in the suit
property and for recovery of possession of the same. He would submit that the
petitioners herein are the children of one Komala, who had purchased the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page4 of 10
property from the 8 th respondent, who had been benefited with the property by
way of a partition among her siblings, registered as Document No.1778 of 1986.
He would submit that the respondents 1 to 7 are the legal heirs of one of the
brothers of the 8th respondent, who was also a party to the partition, and
suppressing the partition deed to which their father was a party, had instituted
the present suit.
4. He would further submit that the 6 th and 7 th respondents, who are the
daughters of the said Varadharajulu, had also earlier instituted a suit against
their father for selling the property, contending that they have a right in the
property and that the property was sold during their minority. This would itself
indicate that the partition deed between the 8 th respondent and her brother, one
of whose legal heirs are respondents 1 to 7, had been acted upon, and that they
have attempted to interfere with the right, title and possession of the property of
the petitioners only to extract money from them, taking into consideration that
the value of the property had enhanced over the years. He would submit that the
respondents 1 to 7, without any cause of action whatsoever, had instituted the
suit only to fraudulently extract money from the petitioners, and hence he seeks
indulgence of this Court to strike off the plaint.
5. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 7/plaintiffs would submit that the present revision to strike off
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page5 of 10
the plaint is wholly without merits. He would submit that when the petitioners
themselves admit that the suit property had originally belonged to the
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, and that the property was subject to a
partition, without substantiating that the said partition was valid and that under
such partition the 8th respondent had been vested with title, the petitioners
cannot claim that the 8 th respondent had valid title pursuant to the said partition
and therefore the sale by the 8 th respondent in favour of the petitioners’ mother
was a valid sale.
6. He would further submit that these are all triable issues and that the suit
is not a re-litigation or an abuse of process of Court, and that such rights could
only be decided in the suit.
7. That apart, relying upon the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in the case of P.Suresh Vs. D.Kalaivani and others reported in
2026 SCC OnLine SC 143 , and in the case of K.Valarmathi and others, Vs.
Kumaresan, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985, he would further submit
that if the suit is struck off by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
227, the valuable right of appeal available to the respondents would be lost, and
therefore it would be proper for the petitioners to take out an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the
revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page6 of 10
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had
canvassed the merits of the suit, it is to be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in
the judgment referred to supra, has held that the High Court should be cautious
in exercising its powers under Article 227 to strike off the plaint. For better
appreciation, the relevant paragraphs of the above said judgments are extracted
hereunder:
(a) In the case of P.Suresh Vs. D.Kalaivani and others reported in 2026
SCC OnLine SC 143, the relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“9. From the aforesaid discussion, it would logically follow
that the High Court would not only discourage but desist from
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in
respect of a challenge for which a separate, distinct, and specific
remedy or statutory provision is available under the statute
concerned. Availability of an alternative civil remedy and/or
under the CPC shall be treated as complete and near total bar on
the High Court to venture to invoke and exercise its power
available under Article 227 of the Constitution, except where
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this
court is of the view that High Court committed a manifest error in
exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to
strike down the plaint. It ought to have asked the defendant to take
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page7 of 10
recourse to, in accordance with law, when specific provisions
available in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in the nature of
Order VII Rule 11. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside.”
(b) In the case of K.Valarmathi and others, Vs. Kumaresan, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 985, the relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“10. Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and
Order VII Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which
the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a
deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under
Section 96 of the Code. This statutory scheme cannot be upended
by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint.
11. In the present case, High Court has supervened the
provisions of the Code when it rejected the plaint on the ground
it was barred by law. In doing so, the High Court not only
substituted itself as the court of first instance but also rendered
nugatory a valuable right to appeal available to the appellant
had the issue been adjudicated by the trial court in the first
place.
12. We are conscious appellate remedy against rejection
of plaint is not available if the High Court had in its revisional
jurisdiction reversed the order of trial court and rejected the
plaint. In Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers7, this
Court observed as follows:—
“31. No doubt rejection of a plaint is a decree
within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page8 of 10
appeal lies from every decree passed by any court
exercising original jurisdiction to the court
authorised to hear appeals from a decision of such
court. However, it must be borne in mind that when
a Revisional Court rejects a plaint, in substance, an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 is being
allowed. Under such circumstances, the remedy by
way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution could be availed and Respondent 1/the
plaintiff has resorted to the said remedy in the
instant case; although if the plaint had been rejected
by the trial court i.e. court of original jurisdiction, it
would have resulted in a right of appeal under
Section 96 CPC.”
13. These observations in Frost (supra) are not relevant
for the matter in issue as the High Court in the present case had
not exercised its supervisory power to correct a jurisdictional
error of the trial court but usurped its original jurisdiction to
reject the plaint.
14. Procedural law provides the necessary legal
infrastructure on which edifice of rule of law is built. Short-
circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an
undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such
impulses rendering procedural safeguards and substantive
rights otiose, subvert certainty and consistency in law and need
to be discouraged.
15. Similar issue fell for decision in Jacky v. Tiny @
Antony8 when a tenant (non-party to the suit) prayed for
rejection of an alleged collusive suit between the legal heirs of
his erstwhile landlord and the new purchaser under Article
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page9 of 10
226/227. Deprecating invocation of constitutional powers in a
landlord-tenant dispute, the Court observed-
“15. …If a suit is not maintainable it was well within the
jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in
appropriate proceedings but in no case power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be
exercised to question a plaint.”
10. For the aforesaid reasons, without entering into the merits as
canvassed by the petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioners to take out an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to canvass their case on merits.
Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
To
The District Munsif Court,
Poonamallee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
__________
Page10 of 10
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
kak
CRP No. 4125 of 2022
30-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis