Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to strike off the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, and to call for the records of the said suit and dismiss the same. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the suit filed by the respondent, in O.S.No.241 of 2009, is an abuse of the process of law. The Registry of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, ought not to have numbered the plaint, since the prayer in the suit is not proper. Though, the pleadings discloses the fact that Late Mahadevan, the petitioners husband, has borrowed the money to the tune of Rs.42,500/- and had executed the promissory note, the plaintiff had sought for a personal decree against the petitioner, which is contrary to law. 3. The cause title showing the respondent, as Sri Kumaran & Co.,is erroneous, as the respondent is not a legal entity. Therefore, the Registry of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, ought not to have numbered the suit. Further, the plaint, which is in a printed form, is not legible. As such the Registry ought to have returned the plaint. He had also submitted that the plaintiff has not given the schedule of the property of the estate of the petitioners husband, said to be lying in the hands of the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009. He had also submitted that no cause of action had been made out for the filing of the suit. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, to strike off the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had pointed out that all the necessary ingredients for filing the suit on a promissory note are existing and the averments made on behalf of the petitioner are denied. The respondent, who is the plaintiff, in O.S.No.241 of 2009, had not asked for a personal decree. In fact the suit has been filed against the estate of the petitioners husband, which is lying in the hands of the petitioner. 5. The respondent, who is the plaintiff, in O.S.No.241 of 2009, had not asked for a personal decree. In fact the suit has been filed against the estate of the petitioners husband, which is lying in the hands of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had further submitted that it would be open to the petitioner to counter the claims and the allegations made by the respondent, in the written statement to be filed in the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009. Therefore, there is no necessity, for this Court, to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, as prayed for by the petitioner. 6. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on perusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition. This Court is of the considered view that it is not appropriate to invoke its power, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the suit, as sought for by the petitioner, at this stage. However, it is made clear that it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the available grounds to counter the allegations made by the respondent, while filing the written statement, in the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.