Madras High Court
CRP/50/2024 of P.GUNASEKAR Vs ANANTH on 4 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.50 of 2024
& CMP.No.181 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012167232023}
P.Gunasekar
S/o.Pandari @ Pandarinathan,
No.72, Cuddalure Road,
Madhahadipattupalayam
Village, Pondicherry District.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. Ananth
S/o.Jayaraman Padayachi,
No.104, Mariammankoil Village,
Thiruvamur Post, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Union of India
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Union Territory of Puducherry.
3. The District Registrar
Department of Registration,
Saram, Puducherry.
4. The Sub Registrar
Thirukanur, Puducherry.
5. Mohanraj,
S/o.Jayaraman Padayachi,
No.104, Mariammankoil Street,
Periya Elathampatti Village,
Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 17.10.2023 passed in
I.A.No.812 of 2022 in O.S.No.216 of 2019 on the file of the Third Additional District Court, Puducherry District.
For Petitioner:
Mr.C.Parthiban
For Respondents:
Mr.T.M.Naveen for R1
Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, GA (P)
for R2 to R4
R5 – Served & No appearance
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 Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.812 of 2022 in O.S.No.216 of 2019 on the file of the Third Additional District Court, Puducherry District (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/D5 seeking to reject the plaint, came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/D5, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff and the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for respondents 2 to 4/D1 to D3.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the cancellation deed dated 11.7.2018 as null and void, to declare that the sale deed dated 02.7.2018 is liable to be registered and to direct the Sub- Registrar, Thirukanur to register the said sale deed dated 02.7.2018.
5. The petitioner/D5 is the owner of the suit property and he filed the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for filing the said suit, that the said suit was barred by law and that the relief, as sought for by the first respondent/plaintiff, was not sustainable.
6. The Court below dismissed the said application by the impugned order on the ground that the plaint disclosed the cause of action and that the relief sought for by the first respondent/plaintiff was not barred by law. Aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed before this Court.
7. A careful reading of the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint would show that the first respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the fifth respondent/D4, who was said to be the power of attorney agent of the petitioner/D5 to purchase the suit property; that the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.10.75 lakhs; that as per the plaint averments, the fifth respondent/D4, in his capacity as the power agent, received a total sum of Rs.5,75,000/- from the first respondent/plaintiff; that pursuant to that, a sale deed was also prepared and presented before the Sub-Registrar, Thirukanur; that the first respondent/plaintiff was willing to pay the balance sale consideration; that the Sub-Registrar, Thirukanur insisted for production of the life certificate of the principal; and that thereafter, the power of attorney document came to be cancelled by the petitioner/D5 on 11.7.2018. It was under those circumstances, the first respondent/plaintiff sought for various reliefs.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the substantive relief can be given to the first respondent/plaintiff only if the relief of specific performance is sought for since the power of attorney has already been cancelled by the petitioner/D5. Therefore, ultimately, if the first respondent/plaintiff is able to make out of a case, it is only the petitioner/D5, who has to execute the sale deed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff. The fifth respondent/D4 remained ex parte and prima facie, the first respondent/plaintiff has been caught in a cross fire between defendants 4 and 5.
9. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of granting liberty to the first respondent/plaintiff to seek for the relief of specific performance before the Court below and the same shall be allowed and the Court below shall proceed further with the suit in O.S.NO.216 of 2019 on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Third Additional District Court, Puducherry is directed to dispose of O.S.No.216 of 2019 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 04-11-2026 To The Third Additional District Court, Puducherry District RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.50 of 2024& CMP.No.181 of 2024 04-11-2026