CRP/3280/2023 of K. Mari Vs Sakthi Kumar on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.163 of 2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. The petitioners herein are the brothers of the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent herein is the son of the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein are brothers. The 1st respondent is the son of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent herein has filed the suit in

O.S.No.163 of 2020 for partition against the petitioners herein and as well as the 2nd respondent herein and also for a declaration that the registered Settlement Deed dated 15.03.2016 executed by the 2nd respondent herein in favour of the 3rd petitioner herein, registered as Document No.1106 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Walajabad, as null and void.

4. The petitioners seek to strike off the plaint on the following grounds:

(a) There is no cause of action against the petitioners.

(b) Partition was subsequently effected between the petitioners 1 to 5 and the 1st respondent herein. Hence, the remedy of the 1st respondent is only against his father and not against the petitioners.

(c) The second relief sought by the plaintiff, namely, cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 15.03.2016 executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the 4th petitioner / 5th defendant under Document No.1106 of 2016, registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Walajabad, has become infructuous, since the said Settlement Deed was mutually cancelled by a Cancellation Deed bearing Document No.1724 of 2022 dated 24.03.2022, registered at the Sub- Registrar Office, Walajabad.

(d) In view of the subsequent Partition Deed dated 25.07.2022, the plaint is liable to be struck off against the petitioners on the ground of misjoinder of parties.

(e) The 1st respondent is entitled to claim a 1/4th share against his father / 2nd respondent and not a 1/12th share in the entire property in terms of the Partition Deed dated 25.07.2022.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that the grounds raised in this Civil Revision Petition establishes that there is no cause of action for the 1st respondent to proceed with the suit and, therefore, the plaint is liable to be struck off. It is further submitted that Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the present case. Order VII Rule 11(a) provides for rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action, whereas Order VII Rule 11(d) provides for rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law. According to the learned counsel, in view of the subsequent Partition Deed dated 25.07.2022, no cause of action survives against the petitioners. It is further contended that the 1st respondent is entitled to claim his share only against his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that the petitioners herein are not the Class-I legal heirs of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the averments contained in the plaint are barred by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that this Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable. The grounds raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact and that has to be adjudicated only by the learned Trial Court after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have relied upon subsequent developments, which are disputed by the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that it is well settled law that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. According to the learned counsel, the suit schedule property is ancestral property and the 1st respondent is entitled to a share therein by birth. Therefore, the suit is maintainable.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani and Others, reported in (2026) 7 SCC 644, and submitted that the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the learned Trial Court by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. It is further submitted that the valuable rights of the 1st respondent cannot be defeated by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even in the said judgment relied upon by the 1st respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not imposed an absolute bar on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the said judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case.

9. The main ground urged by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint is based upon the subsequent Partition Deed dated 25.07.2022. According to the petitioners, the execution of the said document is the route cause for filing this petition and there is no cause of action against them and consequently, the suit is barred by law. However, when there is a dispute regarding the execution of the subsequent partition deed, the petitioners cannot seek to strike off the plaint merely on the basis of the allegation of the petitioners. The authenticity of the said document have to be decided before the Trial Court by letting in oral and documentary evidence by the respective parties.

10. It is settled law that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the averments contained in the plaint alone have to be considered. Here, the petitioners relied upon the documents, which were executed pending the suit. Therefore, the claim for striking off the plaint by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.

11. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani and Others, reported in (2026) 7 SCC 644, is relevant, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“34. It has to be acknowledged that almost all civil suits would involve disputed question of facts. The averment in plaint quite often than not, raise controversy which, in ultimate analysis, is to be addressed and adjudicated by leading evidence. As these are the disputes of civil nature to be dealt with by the civil court, and the invocation of constitutional powers thereover in a routine manner may not be necessary nor is advisable. This proposition, in its analogousness, would justify holding that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution would not be available to be exercised where there is an alternative remedy.

37. When the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are of supervisory nature and when the aforestated settled dictum of law is that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error, it would logically follow that the powers under Article 227 would not be exercised when the non-exercise of such powers does not result into miscarriage of justice or deprivation of remedy in law to a party.

40. In the garb of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to engulf the specific statutory remedy or provision in law and, thus, become a supervisor over the court below or the tribunal, as the case may be. It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline and to insist that the aggrieved party should take recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law, especially, for the case falling in category indicated in Virudhunagar⁷ where remedy available in the CPC for the cases falling under category/other law also, where such specific statutory remedy is available, the dictum laid down herein is true to grant extent.

41. As stated above, embargo in this regard would have to be construed as near total when provision is available in CPC. It is held, therefore, that once the specific provision under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint. For such relief, the specific provision under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, will have to be resorted to, on the grounds mentioned in the said provision.” Therefore, when an alternate remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court should refrain from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except in cases where the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is absolutely necessary.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 INSC 606, wherein it was held 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.”

13. This Court, following the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly the judgment in P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani and Others, referred to supra, is of the view that the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the learned Trial Court by filing an appropriate application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and canvass all their contentions on merits.

14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court and raise all the contentions available to them in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court shall consider the said application independently, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KKN

R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. KKN To The Sub-ordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. CRP No. 3280 of 2023 27-10-2026