Madras High Court
CRP/6645/2025 of R.SYED SAJID AHMED Vs THE CHENNAI METROPOLITAN on 11 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.6645 of 2025
1.R.Syed Sajid Ahmed
2.R.Syed Shakeel Ahmed
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority (CMDA),
Represented by its Member Secretary,
Egmore, Chennai -08.
2.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Chennai - 03.
3.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South), Greater Chennai Corporation, Adyar, Chennai -114.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in O.S. SR. No.2384 of 2025 dated 07.10.2025
passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur and direct the Trial Court to number and proceed with suit in accordance with law.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.C.Samivel
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Sudali Selvam,
Standing Counsel for CMDA for R1
Mrs.S.Vanitha Joice Rani,
Standing Counsel for R2 and R3
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
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Samivel, Mr.V.Sudali Selvam, learned Standing Counsel for CMDA for R1 and Mrs.S.Vanitha Joice Rani, learned Standing Counsel for R2 and R3.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that the suit, even at the stage of numbering had been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of CPC, finding that the plaint has not been valued properly. The learned counsel taking me through the plaint averments and also the impugned proceedings which necessitated the filing of the suit, would contend that the suit has been valued correctly and proper Court fee has been paid. However, according to the Counsel, the Trial Court has rendered an erroneous finding that the reliefs have not been valued properly, without noticing that the valuation was pertaining to the relief sought for only in respect of the B Schedule property.
3. Be that as it may, when the Court has rejected the plaint invoking Order VII, Rule 11 (b) CPC, the proper course of action available to the unsuccessful plaintiff is to prefer an appeal, since the plaint has been rejected which amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC. The revision petition is not the proper remedy, especially when there is no illegal or improper procedure adopted by the Trial Court before rejecting the plaint. I find that an opportunity has also been given to the plaintiff to make good the deficit Court fee, which too has not been complied.
4. In the light of the above, if at all the petitioners desire to justify the valuation to be proper, it should be done in a manner known to law, by preferring a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC. Considering that the plaintiffs have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and have lost time, while dismissing the revision, liberty is given to the petitioners to file a regular First Appeal before the competent Appellate Court. If limitation comes in the way of the petitioners, then, considering the fact that the petitioners have lost time in agitating their grievance before this Court, in the above revision petition, the delay shall not be put against the petitioners.
5. The petitioners shall file an appeal within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the original copies of the order rejecting the plaint and the decree from the Registry of this court. If any such appeal is filed within the said period of four (4) weeks, then the Registry of the Sub Court shall non- suit the petitioners on the ground of limitation and it shall entertain the appeal and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the contesting respondents.
P.B.BALAJI, J.,
6. With the above liberty, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 11-08-2026 RKP Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To
1. The Principal District Munsif, Alandur.
2. The Chennai Metropolitan, Development Authority (CMDA), Represented by its Member Secretary, Egmore, Chennai -08.
3. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai - 03.
4. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South), Greater Chennai Corporation, Adyar, Chennai -114.