CRP/6470/2026 of G.S.T. Lakshmi Narasimhasah Vs D.G.Susilabai on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 31.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.15 of 2025 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/fifth defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the fifteenth respondent.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2025 seeking for the relief of declaration to declare certain documents as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction. The petitioner, who is the fifth defendant, filed I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.15 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata and the relief sought for in the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and absolutely, there is no cause of action for filing the present suit.

4. The Court below, on considering the rival contentions, came to a conclusion that the grounds raised by the petitioner/fifth defendant in the application seeking rejection of plaint require deeper consideration of facts, which can be done only after recording evidence and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

5. The primary contention raised before this Court is that the plaintiffs are very much aware about the pendency of the earlier suit in O.S.No.44 of 2012 and therefore, they are bound by the compromise decree passed in the said suit and the plaintiffs cannot take a stand that they became aware about the passing of the final judgment in the suit only in the year 2024.

6. The Court below, while dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioner, came to a conclusion that during the pendency of the suit, Tmt.Rathna Bai who is the mother of the plaintiffs died on 12.02.2013 and the application filed for impleading the legal representatives came to be rejected and therefore, the plaintiffs never had an opportunity to contest the suit. Therefore, the compromise decree that came to be passed in the suit that was filed in the year 2012 cannot be put against the plaintiffs herein on the ground of res judicata. This is, in view of the fact that the decree was not passed after contest, but it was passed only based on a compromise between the parties in which admittedly the legal representatives of Tmt.Rathna Bai were not parties.

7. Insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned, the Court below rendered a finding that the issue of limitation in the facts of the present case is a mixed question of fact and law. The fact that the plaintiffs herein may know about the previous suit filed in O.S.No.44 of 2012, by itself does not vest any knowledge on the plaintiffs about the result of the suit through a compromise decree. Immediately, after the demise of Tmt.Rathna Bai in the year 2013, the legal representatives of Tmt.Rathna Bai were not impleaded in the suit. Therefore, insofar as they are concerned, they have been shut off from further proceedings in the suit. In the light of this stand taken by the plaintiffs, this Court has to necessarily go by the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiffs came to know about the Lok Adalat Award only during October'2024. How far that averment is sustainable and how far the knowledge of the plaintiffs can be gathered from the events that took place prior to October'2024 are all matters of fact, which require recording of evidence.

8. Insofar as the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, that is again an issue which has to be considered only based on the evidence that is let in by parties. Now that the petitioner/fifth defendant has raised the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction at the earliest point of time, that will also become an issue which will be dealt with by the Court below while dealing with the suit.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm

9. In the light of the above discussion, the finding rendered by the Court below cannot be said to be perverse or beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of the Court since the Court below has rightly considered only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint and hence, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this civil revision petition is dismissed. If, according to the petitioner/fifth defendant, the issue of limitation can be raised as a preliminary issue and if so advised, it will be left open to the petitioner to raise it as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC. If any application is filed, the Court below shall deal with it on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram. Civil Revision Petition No.6470 of 2026