Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2908 (MAD)

K. P. Kuppusamy v. V. Palanisamy

2013-08-13

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the Court below in dismissing the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.598 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem for declaration, permanent injunction and for adjudication of the sale deed dated 26.12.2005 as void and forged document and further, for mandatory injunction to hand over the original sale deed dated 12.02.1997 to him. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit by raising various contentions. 4. The petitioners are the defendants in the said suit. They filed a detailed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. They also filed an application under Order VII, Rue 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in I.A.No.1443 of 2009 seeking for rejection of the plaint. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application would show that the petitioners, more or less, have only reiterated the contentions raised in the written statement, for rejection of the plaint. The Court below dismissed the said application by holding that the contentions raised by the petitioners are not the grounds for rejecting the plaint and on the other hand, they have to be gone into only during the trial. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said application would also show that the petitioners have not made out any case for rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code as none of the ingredients contemplated in the said provisions is attracted. The Court below has rightly rejected the application by holding that the issues raised by the petitioners have to be gone into only during the trial and therefore, there is no necessity for rejecting the plaint. 5. I find that the order of the Court below is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. The petitioners as defendants have already filed written statement by raising all their contentions and it is for the Court below to consider the rival pleadings of the parties and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. Thus, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. 6. The petitioners as defendants have already filed written statement by raising all their contentions and it is for the Court below to consider the rival pleadings of the parties and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. Thus, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit is of the year 2007 and therefore, a suitable direction may be issued to the Court below for disposal of the suit at the earliest. 7. Considering the said submission and in view of the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2007, the trial Court will take up the suit and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.