CRP/6727/2026 of S.Subbulakshmi Vs The District Collector on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint filed by the petitioners even without numbering.

2. The petitioners herein filed the suit seeking declaration that notice dated 24.07.2026 issued by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act was illegal, void and unenforceable against the plaintiffs and to set aside the same.

3. The petitioners also sought for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, either by dispossessing or by demolishing any structure standing thereon, otherwise than by due process of law.

4. By impugned order, the trial court rejected the plaint as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

5. It is seen from the papers that the Civil Revision Petition has been numbered by the Registry, subject to the maintainability.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the suit property is a natham land and hence the respondents/Government Officials are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. According to the learned counsel, when the property does not belong to the Government, the very notice issued by the respondents under the provisions of the said Act is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court without considering the said plea raised by the petitioners erroneously rejected the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that when a plaint is rejected in unnumbered stage, the petitioners need not challenge the same by filing an appeal and they can straight away file revision challenging the rejection order.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments.

(i) Selvaraj and others Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited, reported in 2021 4 CTC 539

(ii) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Represented by Senior Regional Manager-Retail, Coimbatore Retail Region Vs. C.M.Hari Raj and others reported in 2002 (1) CTC 742

(iii) Sunnath Jamath Committee of Masjid-e-Akash rep. By its President Vs. K.Anthonysamy and others reported in 2009 (5) CTC 871

(iv) Dayyala Prabhakar Vs. Aggeti Kamalamma and others reported in 2026 (1) Andh LD 759.

8. In view of the definition of the expression “decree” under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an order rejecting a plaint is a deemed decree and therefore the same is appealable one.

9. The question as to whether an order rejecting a plaint even before numbering could be termed as a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was considered by this Court in T. Kumar Vs. Pavai Varam Educational Trust reported in AIR 2023 Mad 42 and ultimately

it was held that such orders are deemed decree for the purpose of appeal. The relevant observation reads as follows:

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the clear wordings of Section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure. The definition of the expression 'decree' contains three limbs:

(i) The first limb of the definition defines the expression decree by words;

(ii) The second limb of definition is an inclusive definition, it brings an order rejecting the plaint and an order determining any one of the questions under Section 144 of CPC within the fold of definition of decree.

(iii) The third limb of definition is an exclusive definition, it excludes any adjudication from which an appeal shall lie as an appeal from an order and any order dismissing the suit for default from the purview of definition of expression 'decree'.

7. A close scrutiny of the definition of the expression 'decree' would make it clear that the draft man himself had a doubt that order of rejection of plaint may not come within the wordly definition of the expression 'decree'. Since it will not come within the definition as found in first limb of Section 2(2) of CPC, he had chosen to bring it under the inclusive definition by including it in the second limb of definition. Therefore, Section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure does not make any distinction between the rejection of plaint before numbering and after numbering. In such case, an order of rejection of plaint even before numbering of the same, shall be treated as a deemed decree and consequently the revision is not maintainable, in view of availability of regular appeal remedy under Section

of

CPC. 8 . It is also useful to refer to the judgement of this Court reported inMANU/TN/2570/2016 (A.Ramanathan vs. Tamarai Mills Ltd) wherein this Court after referring to the unreported judgement of the Division Bench of this Court made in C.R.P.(PD). No. 1211 of 2013 dated 28.08.2014 observed as follows:- "12. The Division Bench of this Court, in the unreported Judgment dated 28.08.2014 referred supra, has clearly held that if a Court of Law passes an order for rejection of plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code it has the force of "Decree" and therefore, regular "Appeal" lies under Civil Procedure Code and in fact, no "Revision" would lie."

9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order passed by the Court below rejecting the plaint in unnumbered stage is not maintainable.

10. In view of the law laid down in the above mentioned case law, the present Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint in unnumbered stage is not at all maintainable.

11. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited case and Sunnath Jamath Committee case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, though this Court interfered with orders passed by the trial court in a revision, the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition was not taken up for consideration. Therefore, the said judgments will not be helpful to the petitioners in any way. In all the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the maintainability of petition was not taken up for consideration.

12. In Selvaraj case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court issued certain guidelines for numbering of plaint and frequent return by the trial Court without considering the explanation offered by the plaintiff. However, in the said case also the question of maintainability of a revision against an order rejecting a plaint has not been considered. Therefore, the said judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not helpful to his case.

13. In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society reported in Manu/SC/1365/2019 = 2019 (9) SCC 538, the Apex Court held that when an alternative remedy of appeal is

available before the regular Civil Court, this Court shall not entertain revision by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is binding on this Court.

14. In view of the same, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order of rejection of the plaint by filing a regular appeal before the First Appellate Court.

15. While calculating the limitation for filing the first appeal, the petitioners are entitled to exclude the time taken by them in prosecuting the revision before this Court (i.e., from 14.10.2026) to the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 27.10.2026 Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes ub Note: The Registry is directed to return the original certified copy of the impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

To

1. The District Collector, Kanchipuram District, Collectorate Compound, Kanchipuram-501.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram District Collectorate Compound, Kanchipuram-501.

3. The Revenue Division Officer Kanchipuram-501.

4. The Tahsildar, Walajabad Taluk Office, Tahsildar Office Compund, Kanchipuram.

5. The Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. ub CRP.No.6727 of 2026 27.10.2026