(Prayer: PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 28.1.2026 made in I.A.No. 7 of 2025 in O.S.No.37 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsifcum- Juducial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 28.1.2026 made in I.A.No. 7 of 2025 in O.S.No.37 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Juducial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/first defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) came to be dismissed.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

4. The respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

5. In the said suit, the petitioner/first defendant 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 laying the said suit and that the suit was barred by law.

6. But, the Court below, while dealing with the said application, came to the conclusion that the grounds that have been raised by the petitioner/first defendant were triable issues and that they would require a full-fledged trial to deal with the same. Ultimately, the Court below dismissed the said application by the impugned order. Aggrieved by that, the above revision petition has been filed before this Court.

7. On carefully going through the averments in the plaint in the said suit, this Courts feels that it would be relevant to extract the following averments that have been stated with regard to the cause of action at paragraph 5 of the plaint :

                     “5. The cause of action for the suit arose on 14.06.1999 the date of certified copy of registered settlement deed executed by Sivakami Ammal in favour of Palani and Babu bearing document No.785 of 1999; on 30.10.2017 the date of certified copy of registered partition deed entered into between Malliga and another bearing document No.2333 of 2017; on 21.8.2019 the date of certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Malliga in favour of Purushothaman bearing document No.2196 of 2019; on 28.11.2019 the date of certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Rajavelu and Kareem Basha in favour of Purushothaman bearing document No.3301 of 2019; on 07.07.2022 the date of certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Palani and Babu in favour of Purushothaman bearing document No.2616 of 2022; on 28.06.2025 the date of online copy of computerized patta stands in the name of Palani, Son of Varadaraji Gramani under patta No.1069 issued by e-services of Government of Tamil Nadu in respect of suit item No.4; on 28.06.2025 the date of certified copy of computerized patta stands in the name of Purushothaman, Son of Kuber under patta No. 2809 issued by e-services of Government of Tamil Nadu in respect of suit item Nos.2 and 3; on 28.06.2025 the date of online copy of computerized patta stands in the name of Purushothaman, Son of Kuber under patta No. 3195 issued by e-services of Government of Tamil Nadu in respect of suit item No.1; on 27.06.2025 the date of xerox copy of complaint given by the plaintiff as against the defendants; on the date of original photographs (5 in Nos.) on 27.06.2025; on 27.6.2025 CSR copy in favour of the plaintiff issued by S.I. of Police, Chunambedu; the date of unlawful attempt made by the defendants and the suit properties situated at No.60, Gengadevankuppam Village, Hamlet of Sembulipuram Village, Kadapakkam Firka, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District and all are within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.”

8. After the said application was filed by the petitioner/first defendant, a counter has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff wherein the relevant portions read thus:

                     “Thereafter that this Respondent had given a general power of attorney in favour of one Premkumar, son of Mallaiah under the Registered general power of attorney deed dated 16.06.2025 bearing document No.2653 of 2025 and thereafter there is a dispute between this Respondent and his general power of attorney agent and that the very next day on 17.06.2025 that the general power of attorney of this Respondent one Premkumar had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner Usman and immediately that the Respondent came to know and he had given a protest petition to the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur on 18.06.2025 not to register the sale deed in the name of Petitioner Usman and the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur is also assured that not to registered the sale deed and it is kept pending as pending document No.196/2025 dated 17.06.2025 and thereafter that this Respondent immediately to cancelled the general power of attorney deed dated 16.06.2025 bearing document No.2653 of 2025 under the cancellation of general power of attorney deed dated 19.06.2025 bearing document No.2700 of 2025. Further that this Respondent very recently came to know that through the Village Administrative Officer, that the sale deed dated 17.06.2025 was registered on 30.07.2025 bearing document No.3444 of 2025 and thereafter that the plaintiff enquired and verified the document that through the Registration Department forwarded the copy of sale deed to the Village in Administrative Officer and in forwarded copy of sale deed dated 17.06.2025 which is registered on 30.07.2025 and in that sale deed last page of the sale deed that the Sub-Registrar refused the document on 23.06.2025 as the reason stating that the patta stands in the name of vendor of this Respondent and hence, it could not be able to be registered and to return the same to the petitioner Usman. But in that refusal order that the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur has not stated that the general power of attorney deed is already cancelled by principal who is this Respondent herein under the cancellation of Registered general power of attorney deed dated 19.06.2025 bearing document No.2700 of 2025 and taking advantage of the same that the petitioner Usman had filed a writ petition before the High Court Judicature of Madras in W.P.No.24024 of 2025 challenging the impugned order of the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur dated 23.06.2025 in Na.Ka. No.P.196/2025 and the petitioner Usman misleading the Hon'ble High Court Judicature of Madras colluded with the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur by suppressing the cancellation of general power of attorney deed dated 19.06.2025 bearing document No.2700 of 2025 and in that writ petition that the Hon'ble High Court Judicature of Madras had passed the order carefully with relevant portion of the circular No.22482/C1/ 2022 dated 12.07.2024 which run as follows ‘In the reference, first cited, Hon'ble High Court had directed the Inspector General of Registration to issue circular indicating the law declared by the Court in various verdicts. Accordingly this circular is issued on the basis of the various verdicts of Courts and also reiterating various circulars which have been already issued in this regard, a) Vide Inspector of General of Registration Circular No.58804/L1/2004 dated 08.11.2004 it has been already instructed that registering officers should not insist the registrants to produce Chitta, Adangal, Rental value certificate etc. More over, in the said circular, it was stated that if any violation is found, severe disciplinary action would be initiated against the registering officer.’ Further that the learned Special Government Pleader appeared that and he would submit that if the sale deed dated 17.06.2025 is represented by the petitioner the same would be registered and further that the lordship said that in the order ‘If it is otherwise in order, in the light of instruction laid down in Circular No.22482/C1/2022 dated 12.07.2024. If, for any reason, the Sub Registrar is of the view that the registration ought to be refused, he would do so after assigning reason, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner’ and further that the lordship said that ‘If any such sale deed is re-presented, THE respondent shall register the sale deed, if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the instructions laid down in Circular No.22482/C1/ 2022 dated 12.07.2024. If for any reason, the respondent refuses to register the sale deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal slip, which was agreed to by both counsels for petitioner as well as respondents’. As per above discussion of the lordship that the observation of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature Madras was not properly followed by the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur and the petitioner Usman and they have jointly misleading the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras and obtained the order. Further that the present petitioner has no locus standi to prepare writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicaturem Madras who is not presented the document since the document early presented by one Premkumar, who is the general power of attorney of this respondent. Further after passing the order of High Court Judicature of Madras in W.P.No.24024 of 2025 that the general power of attorney of this respondent alone is locostandi to re-present the sale deed but the present petitioner has no any locostandi to re-present the sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur and the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur has not followed the order passed by High Court Judicature of Madras and the Sub Registr Cheyyur has not refused the sale deed for the reason that the general power of attorney was already cancelled by the principal and also as per the circular of Inspector General of Registration that the sale deed has not refused by the Sub Registrar that the life certificate of principal has not attached and the original general power of attorney has not produced by the agent along with the sale deed since the sale deed represented after one month lapse under Circular No.4537/C1/2018 dated 09.10.2018 Inspector of General of Registration. Further that the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur transferred to Kelambakkam Sub Registrar Office on 30.07.2025 and the pending sale deed of this petitioner was released by Sub Registrar, Cheyyur and regular number was assigned as No.3444 of 2025………..”

9. The main ground that has to be considered in this revision is that while filing the plaint in the said suit, for reasons best known to the respondent/plaintiff, certain vital facts that have been pleaded in the counter filed to I.A.No.7 of 2025 do not find a place at least till the date of filing the said suit on 02.7.2025. This clearly amounts to suppression of facts and these are facts, which are well within the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff, which ought to have been pleaded in the plaint.

10. It must be borne in mind that the respondent/plaintiff was seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and therefore, he was expected to come to court with clean hands by pleading all the relevant facts. Those facts that have been pleaded in the counter to the said application should have been necessarily pleaded in the plaint. In fact, the counter affidavit that has been filed to the said application is more exhaustive than the plaint itself.

11. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the plaint in the said suit suffers from abuse of process since there is vital suppression of facts.

12. When this is pointed out to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, he submits that as on the date of filing the said suit, no sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioner/first defendant.

13. In the considered view of this Court, the said suit, in its present form, cannot be prosecuted since the sale deed has also been executed.

14. In view of the above, the above civil revision petition is disposed of. Liberty is granted to the respondent/plaintiff to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur and file a substantive suit before the concerned jurisdictional Court by making all necessary pleadings and seeking for the reliefs. This liberty will sufficiently take care of the interests of the respondent/plaintiff. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are closed.