logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5943 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRP. Nos. 4283 & 4288 of 2022 & CMP. No. 22485 of 2022 & CMP. No. 22498 of 2022
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Parties : P. Durga & Another Versus Om Sri AnandaSairam Dhyanakoodam, Rep. by its Secretary C. Vijarangan, Thiruvallur & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: M.P. Saravanan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, S. Surya, Government Advocate, R1, No Appearance.
Date of Judgment : 14-08-2026
Head Note :-
HR & CE Act - Section 108 -
Judgment :-

Common Order

1. The issue involved in both these cases are common and hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.110 of 2018 and IA.No.5 of 2021 in OS.No.108 of 2018, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur, dated 29.07.2022, wherein the applications filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, to reject the plaint came to be dismissed by the Court below.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the HR & CE Department. The 1st respondent has been served with notice and the name of the 1st respondent has also been printed in the cause list. There is no appearance either in person or through counsel.

4. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suits filed in OS.No.108 of 2018 and OS No.110 of 2018. The suits were filed against the petitioners who according to the 1st respondent are the tenants, seeking for the relief of payment of arrears of rent and for eviction from the suit property.

5. The petitioners filed IA.Nos.4 of 2021 and 5 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for rejection of plaint. These applications came to be dismissed by the Court below by order dated 29.07.2022. Aggrieved by the same, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed before this Court.

6. When these CRPs came up for hearing on 09.01.2023, this Court suo motu impleaded the Executive Officer/Fit Person of the temple as the 2nd respondent and proceed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions and thereby the plaint in both the suits was struck off.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in the Civil Revision Petitions, Civil Appeal was filed before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6638 of 2025. The Civil Appeal came to be partly allowed by order dated 13.5.2025 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

                     The first subcommission made on the earlier occasion that the appellant who was the plaintiff was not heard by the High Court before passing the impugned order and even a notice of the Revision Petition was not issued to the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent accepted the fact that the appellant was not heard.

                     Hence, only on that ground, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 9th January, 2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and restore Civil Revision Petition Nos.4288 and 4283 of 2022 to the file of the High Court. The restored petitions shall be listed before the roster Bench on 21st July, 2025 in the morning. The appellant and the second respondent shall remain represented on that day. No further notice shall be served upon them. The notice may be issued only to the first respondent in these appeals.

                     All contentions are left open to be decided by the High Court.

8. Pursuant to the above order, the Civil Revision Petitions are listed for final hearing.

9. The 1st respondent in these petitions who is the plaintiff has not chosen to contest these civil revision petitions and hence this Court heard the counsel for the petitioners and also the counsel appearing on behalf of the HR & CE Department. In the case in hand, HR & CE Department was impleaded by this Court as the 2nd respondent only to ascertain as to whether the suit property belongs to the HR & CE Department or it belongs to the plaintiff and to whom the petitioners are paying the rent.

10. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the HR & CE Department submitted that the title to the property has already been decided by this Court in AS.No.449 of 1998 by a judgment and decree dated 22.4.2008 and it was made clear that the subject property belonged to the temple. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that a fit person has been appointed to administer the temple and the order that was passed by this Court in WP.No.41014 of 2016, dated 03.8.2022 was also considered.

11. In the light of the above development, this Court found that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the express bar under Section 108 of the HR & CE Act. Since the 1st respondent/plaintiff suppressed these vital facts, this Court proceeded to strike off the plaint in both the suits.

12. The subject matter of challenge in both these Civil Revision Petitions are the orders passed in the applications filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, to reject the plaint. However, even while testing the order passed by the Court below, certain glaring facts were brought to the notice of this Court to the effect that the title of the temple has already been confirmed by a competent Civil Court and the HR & CE Department is in control of the property and a fit person has also been appointed and that the petitioners are paying their rents to the department. In the light of the above development, the case in hand goes beyond the purview of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and this Court has to see if the very suit instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff is a gross abuse of process of law. If that is so, whether this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can strike off the suit.

13. This Court had an occasion to deal with this issue in extenso in C. Venkatesan and Others .vs. R.Vasantha and Others reported in (2025) 6 CTC 787. This Court held that if the grounds that are available under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, are raised in a civil revision petition to strike off the plaint, such a petition should not be entertained and the parties will have to be relegated back to the trial Court. However in cases which involves re-litigation or the very suit instituted is an abuse of process, Article 227 of the Constitution of India can always be exercised to strike off such plaints. I am in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.B.Balaji passed in C. Venkatesan case, referred supra.

14. When the earlier order was passed by this Court on 09.01.2023, all these factors were taken into consideration by this Court and this Court found that the suit that has been instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff was a gross abuse of process of law. This order came to be set aside by the Apex Court only on the ground that no notice was issued to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Now that notice has been issued to the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st respondent/plaintiff has not chosen to contest this case, this Court holds that the suit that has been instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff is a gross abuse of process of law and it has been filed inspite of the title already held to be vested on the temple by a competent Civil Court and the temple is administered by a fit person who has been appointed by the HR & CE Department. Under such circumstances, the suit cannot be allowed to be prosecuted before the Court below.

15. In the light of the above discussion, the plaints filed in OS.Nos.110 and 108 of 2018, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur, dated 29.7.2022, are hereby struck off and both the Civil Revision Petitions stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitioners are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal