CRP/5427/2026 of C.Sivaraj Vs K.Kanagaraj on 26 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.1342 of 2021 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/D9 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for rejection of the plaint, came to be dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking for the following reliefs: “(a) To declare that the preliminary mortgage decree passed in O.S.No.392/1988 by the Hon’ble IIIrd Additional Subordinate Coimbatore over the suit property is null and void, non-est and not binding upon the plaintiff; (b) To declare that the final mortgage decree passed in O.S.No.392/1988 by the Hon’ble IIIrd Additional Subordinate Coimbatore over the suit property is null and void, non-est and not binding on the plaintiff;

(c) To declare that the sale certificate issued in E.P.No.311 of 2005 in O.S.No.392/ 1988 by the Hon’ble IIIrd Additional Subordinate Coimbatore in favour of the 8th defendant over the suit property is null and void, non-est and not binding on the plaintiff; (d) To declare that the sale deed dated 06.11.2019 registered vide document No.7906/ 2019 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Thondamuthur executed by the Hon’ble Third Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, on behalf of 8th defendant, in favour of the 9th defendant, is null and void, non- est and not binding upon the plaintiff; (e) To declare that the sale deed dated 07.1.2019 registered vide document No.4059/ 2021 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Thondamuthur executed by the 8th defendant in favour of defendants 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, is null and void, non-est and not binding upon the plaintiff; (f) Restraining the defendants, their men, agents and their successors from any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property through an order of permanent injunction; (g) award the costs of the suit.”

5. The petitioner, who is D9 in the said suit, filed I.A.No.9 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that D8 was the auction purchaser of the suit properties and other properties under a sale certificate dated 04.8.2011; that already E.A.No.397 of 2012 filed seeking for delivery of possession was pending; that the respondent/plaintiff already filed E.A.No.2 of 2020 in E.P.No.311 of 2005 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC claiming for the very same relief and the same is pending; and that while so, the said suit has been filed, which would be barred by law. On the said grounds, the petitioner/D9 sought for rejection of the plaint.

6. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter and contested the said application by putting forth all the facts.

7. The Court below, after considering the rival contentions, came to the conclusion that the averments made in the plaint, when read as a whole, would clearly make out a cause of action, that the various grounds raised would require a detailed and full-fledged trial and that it could not be adjudicated at that stage and accordingly dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India and it is converted into one under Section 115 of the CPC and is heard by this Court.

8. On carefully considering the submissions made on either side and perusing the materials placed before this Court, it is seen that this case has a chequered history. The long and short of the case is that the respondent/plaintiff is confining his right only to an extent of 2 Acres. However, the petitioner/D9 is claiming a right over larger extent of property by virtue of a sale deed executed in his favour in a suit in O.S.No.551 of 2018 on the file of the Third Additional District Court, Coimbtore, filed for specific performance wherein the sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner/D9 by the Court on 06.11.2019.

9. Apart from that, it is seen that D8 has created another sale deed covering the entire suit properties in favour of D10 to D14 and it was subsequently registered as doc.No.4059 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thondamuthur pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by me in W.P.No.15049 of 2020.

10. The respondent/plaintiff challenged the proceedings right from the mortgage decree that was passed in O.S.No.392 of 1988 on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore till the registration of the sale deed dated 06.11.2019 in favour of the petitioner/D9 on the ground that all those transactions were null and void in so far as the suit properties were concerned measuring an extent of about 2 acres.

11. The main ground that has been urged on the side of the petitioner/D9 is that the respondent/plaintiff is parallelly prosecuting E.A.No.2 of 2020 in E.P.No.311 of 2005 filed under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC wherein he has questioned the mortgage decree and also the court auction sale held on 09.1.2008 and that during the pendency of E.A.No.2 of 2020, the suit in

O.S.No.1342 of 2021 came to be filed, which is clearly barred under Order XXI Rule 103 of the CPC.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that E.A.No.2 of 2020 was filed under Section 47 of the CPC, that the scope of it is very limited and that therefore, a substantive suit has been filed in O.S.No.1342 of 2021 and that Order XXI Rule 103 of the CPC will not have any application in the present case.

13. It is also seen from the records that Transfer O.P.No.166 of 2025 has also been filed before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore to tag O.S.No.1342 of 2021 along with E.A.No.2 of 2020 pending on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

14. The respondent/plaintiff, having chosen to file a substantive suit in O.S.No.1342 of 2021 questioning all the transactions starting from the preliminary mortgage decree upto the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner/D9 on 06.11.2019, cannot prosecute E.A.No.2 of 2020 parallelly. In view of the same, the respondent/plaintiff can withdraw E.A.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore and agitate his rights in O.S.No.1342 of 2021 pending on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. By doing so, all the parties can focus their attention to the claim made in O.S.No.1342 of 2021 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. If the same is done, the ground that has been raised in I.A.No.9 of 2025 will pale into insignificance. Even in so far as any interim protection sought for by the respondent/plaintiff is concerned, the same has to be worked out in O.S.No.1342 of 2021.

15. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above clarifications. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.

26-10-2026 To The First Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.5427 of 2026& CMP.No.23553 of 2026 26-10-2026