Madras High Court
CRP/6514/2026 of Mariappan Vs Mariammal on 8 October 2026
CRP No. 6514 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6514 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012368712026}
AND
CMP NO. 28067 OF 2026
1. Mariappan
S/o Muppudathy
2. Peruma @ Perumal
W/o Mariappan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Mariammal
W/o Muthu
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order made in I.A.No.l of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2022
dated 11.06.2026 on the file of the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram and allow the I.A.No.l of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2022
and reject the plaint.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.J.Thomassaransingh
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 CPC challenging the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.1 of 2022 in OS No.55 of 2022 dated 11.06.2026 wherein the application filed by the petitioners /defendants 1 and 2 seeking for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, came to be dismissed by the Court below.
CRP No. 6514 of 2026
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
3. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in OS No.55 of 2022 seeking for the relief of delivery of possession of the suit property and damages.
4. The petitioner /defendants 1 and 2 filed an application seeking for rejection of plaint mainly on the grounds that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and that the relief sought for in the suit is barred by limitation.
5. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the cause of action is a bundle of facts and that, on a reading of the plaint, a cause of action has been made out. Insofar as limitation is concerned, the Court below held that it is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
6. In the considered view of this Court, when this Court carefully went through the averments made in the plaint it reads as if the defendants are allegedly permissive occupants and on that premise, the plaintiff has sought delivery of possession. If the defendants are permissive occupants as per the
CRP No. 6514 of 2026
case of the plaintiff, there is no limitation provided since it is more in the nature of license. The stand taken on the side of the petitioners to the effect that they are not permissive occupants and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property in their own right is not an issue which can be dealt with in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
7. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. However, it does not foreclose the stand that has been taken by the petitioners /defendants and the same can be raised before the Court below and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, after evidence is let in by both sides and the suit is ultimately disposed of on merits.
8. In the result, the order passed by the Court below is sustained and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA
CRP No. 6514 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram CRP No. 6514 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 28067 OF 2026 08-10-2026