logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5758 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : C.M.A. No. 1250 of 2026 & C.M.P. No. 12104 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Parties : Brahada Kameshwaran & Another Versus D.M. Manohar
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: Hema Sampath, Senior Advocate Asst. by R. Meenal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Chari, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 06-08-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order XLIII Rule (a) -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule (a) C.P.C., 1988, to set aside the e-court order dated 09.04.2026 passed in O.S.No.3813 of 2023 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. This appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of CPC, against the order passed by the VII Additional Judge, Chennai returning the plaint as per Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, with a direction to the appellants to present the same before the Commercial Court within one month from the date of the order.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit filed in OS.No.3813 of 2023. The suit was filed for recovery of the arrears of rent from the defendant with interest and for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of suit property.

3. The defendant filed written statement and took a stand that the arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiffs is unsustainable and that the rent has been properly paid and there was no valid termination of the lease before the plaintiffs approached the Court below seeking for the relief of delivery of possession. Accordingly, the defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the issues were framed and both the parties let in evidence.

5. The arguments were heard on both sides and the written arguments were also filed by both sides. The Court below reserved the suit for judgment.

6. While so, by an order dated 09.04.2026, the Court below came to a conclusion that the dispute involved will fall under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Court Act and therefore the Court below does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and the suit can only be tried before the Commercial Courts. Accordingly, the plaint was returned as per Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, and a direction was issued to the plaintiffs to present the plaint before the Commercial Courts within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

8. The short issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Court below should have given an opportunity to the appellants to put forth their submissions regarding the maintainability of the suit since no issue was framed by the Court below on the issue of maintainability and for the first time, the Court below after considering the pleadings and evidence has come to a conclusion that the dispute involved is a commercial dispute and therefore only the Commercial Court can deal with the case.

9. The Court after hearing the arguments on both sides and after receiving the written arguments, has come to the conclusion that the dispute can be agitated only before the Commercial Courts. Nothing prevented the Court to post the suit for clarification and express the view to the counsel appearing on either side so that the learned counsel appearing on either side can make their submissions and depending upon the same, the Court below could have taken the decision. If even after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaint has to be returned since the dispute can be tried only before the Commercial Court, nothing will prevent the Court from returning the plaint. While doing so, atleast the parties will not be taken by surprise by the decision taken by the Court at the fag end of the case to return the plaint to be presented before the appropriate Court.

10. This Court makes it clear that the error committed by the Court below is only with regard to the procedure that was followed. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below ought to have listed the suit for clarification and informed the learned counsel on either side about the view taken by the Court and heard them with respect to the same. Since this minimum requirement has not been satisfied and the Court below has proceeded to return the plaint, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below on 09.4.2026 and the same is hereby set aside.

11. In view of the above, the matter is remitted back to the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned counsel appearing on either side shall appear before the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, on 24.08.2026. On that day, the Court below shall fix a date to hear both sides on the issue of maintainability of the suit. Upon hearing both sides, the Court below shall take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and about the maintainability of the suit and the order passed by the Court below has been interfered only on the ground that the procedure followed by the Court below is not in accordance with law and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

12. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal