Madras High Court
CRP/6342/2026 of J.Vijayaragan Vs A.Ramalingam on 13 October 2026
CRP No. 6342 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6342 of 2026
and CMP No. 27334 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012114022026}
J.Vijayaragan
S/o. Jayaraman Pillai
Door No. 53, Plot No. 60
Sai Nagar, Virugambakkam
Chennai 092
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
A.Ramalingam
S/o. K.S.Ananda Naidu
Door No.8, Neeli Appadurai Mudali Street Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur Dist.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 08.06.2026 in I.A.No.4 of 2026 in O.S.No.3 of 2026 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Ponneri.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.Krishnan for
M/s. Nathan and Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.E Prabhu
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2026 in O.S.No.3 of 2026 on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri, wherein the
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 01:01:42 pm )
CRP No. 6342 of 2026
application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint, came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
3. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2026, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and to declare that the Memorandum-cum-Sale Agreement dated 23.10.2025, has been validly terminated by the plaintiff by letter dated 08.12.2025 and notice dated 17.12.2025.
4. The petitioner, who is the defendant, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of plaint mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has not paid Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and that the declaratory relief has been erroneously valued and a faulty Court fee of Rs.1000/- has been paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. If the suit is properly valued, it will go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 01:01:42 pm )
CRP No. 6342 of 2026
Court below and the Court fees must be paid under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
5. The Court below dismissed the application, mainly on the ground that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court must merely examine the averments made in the plaint, along with the documents filed with the plaint, and nothing more. The Court below also prima facie found that there was nothing wrong with the valuation of the plaint under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and considering the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff.
6. The petitioner/defendant had filed the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2026 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff herein from alienating or encumbering the suit property. This suit was filed based on the Sale Agreement-cum-Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.10.2025. While filing this suit, an application was filed under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C., to grant leave to file a comprehensive suit for specific performance at a later stage. The said application came to be rejected.
7. The plaintiff in this case filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint in O.S.No.45 of 2026, filed by the petitioner. The
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 01:01:42 pm )
CRP No. 6342 of 2026
District Munsif, Ponneri, by order dated 05.10.2026, has rejected the plaint by allowing the application. Thus, the right that is claimed by the petitioner/defendant in this case under the Agreement of Sale is virtually non- existent as on date. By contesting the present suit, the petitioner/defendant will not gain anything. The present suit that has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff has virtually become insignificant, since the petitioner/defendant will not be able to further exercise their right under the Memorandum of Understanding-cum-Sale Agreement dated 23.10.2025, unless they proceed further to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2026 or/and challenge the dismissal of the application filed under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C., during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2026.
8. The reasoning given by the Court below, as well as the subsequent developments that have taken place in this case, have been taken into consideration by this Court and no useful purpose will be served for the petitioner/defendant to prosecute this Civil Revision Petition unless they focus their attention on the earlier order which virtually has sealed their fate to work out their remedies under the Sale Agreement-cum-Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.10.2025. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Court below does not require the interference of this Court.
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 01:01:42 pm )
CRP No. 6342 of 2026
9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 01:01:42 pm )
CRP No. 6342 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The District Munsif, Ponneri. CRP No. 6342 of 2026 13-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 01:01:42 pm )