CRP/6400/2026 of Anjamani Vs Kuppan Udaiyar (Deceased) 1. Kumari on 5 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 23.7.2026 in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.3484 of 2016 on the file of the learned Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/ defendant under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) came to be dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

4. The original plaintiff filed the said suit seeking for the relief of recovery of money. The cause of action for filing the said suit as stated in the plaint is that the petitioner/defendant used the land belonging to the original plaintiff, agreed to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- and executed a confession bond. This amount was not repaid as per the bond and thereafter, the petitioner/defendant executed a promissory confession bond. Even thereafter, the money was not repaid back and it was under those circumstances, the said suit came to be filed before the Court below.

5. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the said application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint on the ground that the recovery of money was sought for based on a bogyam, that admittedly, the subject property is situated at Tirukovilur, that the petitioner/defendant is also residing at Tirukovilur, that the suit ought to have been filed only before the competent court at Tirukovilur, that therefore, the plaint has to be returned and that the respondents/legal heirs of the original plaintiff should be asked to prosecute the case only before the competent court at Tirukovilur.

6. However, the Court below dismissed the said application by the impugned order mainly on the ground that earlier, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.14334 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking to reject the plaint contending that a fraudulent document was relied upon and the Court below did not have the territorial jurisdiction and the cause of action to proceed further with the case; that the earlier application came to be dismissed by order dated 22.7.2020; that in view of the same, the very same issue of territorial jurisdiction could not be allowed to be raised once again in the subsequent application; that the pleadings, as found in the plaint, brought the said suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below; and that the petitioner/defendant, in order to get over the order dated 22.7.2020 passed in the earlier application, filed the present application. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

7. In the considered view of this Court, in the said suit, money is sought to be recovered by the original plaintiff based on a bogyam transaction. The fact that the petitioner/defendant is said to have occupied the subject property at Tirukovilur is borne out by records. Since the amount was not repaid back, a document under the style of promissory confession bond was said to have been executed and this document is hotly contested by the petitioner/ defendant on the ground that it is a forged and fabricated document.

8. The said suit is a pure and simple suit filed for recovery of money. The cause of action for filing the said suit is mentioned in the plaint stating that the execution of the promissory confession bond was on 12.6.2014 at Chennai. The Court below, while considering the present application, can only go by the averments contained in the plaint. In the first place, the petitioner/defendant has taken a very specific stand that this document is a forged and fabricated document. On a demurrer, the petitioner has also taken a stand that the bogyam pertained to the land in Tirukovilur and that the alleged promissory confession bond is a consequence of the bogyam.

9. This issue on the genuineness of the document itself has been put to question and therefore, the Court below, for the present, will act upon the document to ascertain the territorial jurisdiction and depending upon what comes in by way of evidence let in by both sides, the Court below will go into the genuineness or otherwise of this document. Hence, this document, for the present, cannot be the basis for considering the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which has been raised on the side of the petitioner/ defendant. This Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Court below.

10. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is disposed of while confirming the impugned order dated 23.7.2026 in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.3484 of 2016 on the file of the learned Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai. Considering the fact that the said suit is of the year 2016, there shall be a direction to the Court below to dispose of O.S.No.3484 of 2016 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit a compliance report to this Court. It is made clear that any observations that were made by the Court below in the applications filed by the petitioner/defendant or any observations made by this Court in this civil revision petition will not have any bearing while deciding the said suit by the Court below on merits. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 05-10-2026 To The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. RS

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6400 of 2026& CMP.No.27551 of 2026 05-10-2026