(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 24-04-2025 made in I.A.No.5/2024 in O.S.No.107/2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Denkanikottai.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decretal order dated 24.04.2025 made in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.107 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Denkanikottai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of plaint came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. The respondents are the plaintiffs who filed the suit in O.S.No.107 of 2024 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 2/6th share in the suit property and for other consequential reliefs.

3. The petitioner, who is the 1st defendant, filed IA No.5 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint on the ground that there is absolutely no cause of action for filing the present suit with respect to the ‘C’ Schedule property, by relying upon the Partition Deed dated 18.02.1982.

4. The Court below, while dealing with this application, came to the conclusion that the ground that has been raised in the application cannot be decided in the petition, since the plaintiff has raised the ground of fraud and which can be considered only after letting in evidence and at the time of final disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

5. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner is that ‘C’ Schedule property was allotted in favour of Rajamma, who is the grandmother of the respective parties and that she was only given a life interest and the absolute interest was given in favour of the first son, Late Raghunatha Reddy. After the demise of Rajamma, Raghunatha Reddy became the owner of the ‘C’ Schedule property. Raghunatha Reddy died on 08.12.2023, leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. In such a scenario, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in the year 2024, after nearly forty two years by contending that the recitals in respect of the ‘C’ Schedule in the Partition Deed dated 18.02.1982, is forged.

6. It is further contended that neither Rajamma nor her son challenged the Partition Deed during their lifetime and therefore, the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of the son of Rajamma, do not have the locus to file the suit for partition by disregarding the Partition Deed dated 18.02.1982.

7. The further contention raised is that the plaintiffs have accepted the Partition Deed insofar as the ‘A’& ‘B’ Schedule properties are concerned and what has been questioned is only the recitals in respect of the ‘C’ Schedule and such a stand is unsustainable. Even though, the plaintiffs have raised the ground of fraud, no sufficient averments have been made as mandated under Order VI Rule 4 of C.P.C. It is therefore, contended that the suit has been filed without a cause of action and is barred by law and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

8. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.09.2026, this Court heard both sides and considering the nature of ground raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs and the documents that were relied upon, this Court passed the following order:

               On considering the submissions made on either side, this Court suggested the learned counsel for the respondents that it will be more appropriate for the respondents to file substantive suit, since even if an order is passed, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, that will not preclude the respondents from filing a fresh suit. The learned counsel seeks for some time to take instruction.

               2. Post this matter on 29.09.2026, under the caption “For orders”.

9. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, on instructions, submitted that the plaintiffs will file a substantive suit by claiming all the reliefs and this Court may grant leave to the respondents/plaintiffs in this regard.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, under Order VII Rule 13 of CPC., rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., will not stand in the way of the respondents/plaintiffs filing a fresh suit and therefore, even without a specific order granting leave, a suit can be filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. But however, if such a suit is filed based on the leave granted by this Court, the defendants will not be able to raise all the grounds and it will prejudice the interest of the defendants.

11. The nature of grounds that have been raised by the plaintiffs and the documents that were placed before this Court during the previous hearing, this Court suggested that it will better for the plaintiffs to file a substantive suit and claim the reliefs. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant, while dealing with an application for rejection of plaint, the Court can only take into account the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with plaint and nothing more.

12. The nature of allegations that have now been made against the respondents/plaintiffs by pointing out certain discrepancies in the document, will go beyond the purview of the suit that has been filed before the Court below. Therefore, it will be appropriate for the respondents to file a fresh suit by claiming for substantive reliefs.

13. As stated supra, Order VII Rule 13 of C.P.C., makes it clear that the rejection of a plaint will not preclude the presentation of a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. If, during the pendency of the suit, certain other subsequent developments have also taken place and are relatable to the original cause of action, that can also form part of the fresh suit filed by the plaintiffs. In the light of the specific provision available by means of Order VII Rule 13 of C.P.C., it is left open the respondents to file a substantive suit by claiming all the reliefs. It is also made clear that the defendants can raise all the grounds available and the same will be considered by the concerned Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.

14. In the light of the above discussion, order dated 24.04.2025 made in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.107 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Denkanikottai, is hereby set aside and the plaint filed in O.S.No.107 of 2025 stands rejected. This order will enable the respondents/plaintiffs to file the substantive suit and workout their remedy.

15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs.