BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 26/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA CRP.PD(MD).No. 1279 of 2008 & M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 1. P.C. Rajendran 2. S.M.S.R. Chandra Bose .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 1&2 Vs. 1. Nagarajan 2. Smt.Tamil Arasi .. Respondents/Respondents / Plaintiffs1 &2 Prayer Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set-aside the order of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in I.A. No.11 of 2008 in O.S. No. 122 of 2007 dated 5.6.2008. !For Petitioners ... Mr. D. Muruganantham ^For Respondents ... Mr. G. Maruthiah :ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order
passed by the trial court in I.A. No. 11 of 2008 in O.S. No. 122 of 2007 dated
5.6.2008 thereby an application was moved for rejection of the pleadings under
Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C.
2. The trial court was of the view that since the plaintiffs have filed
the suit for permanent injunction, whether they are entitled for the relief as
prayed for or not are all to be decided only after full trial and in such
circumstance, whether the impugned order does require interference under Order
VI Rule 16 of C.P.C. as prayed for .
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the
notice that the respondent herein after filing the suit has not properly made
out the entire pleadings including the dismissal of earlier suits. Therefore, on
that basis, moved an application under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. to strike off the
pleadings. The trial court by dealing with the reasons cited for striking off
the pleadings came to the conclusion that even though the subject matter in the
present suit and the earlier suits are one and the same, the cause of action
differs. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the earlier suit in O.S. No.113 of
2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti only against the
petitioners in the present application under Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. In O.S.
No.453 of 2004. The plaintiff filed the suit against 20 persons in which also
the defendants 3 and 4 in the present suit were not parties. Further, while
referring the earlier suit in O.S. No. 453 of 2004, it was held that the said
suit was dismissed for default and subsequently, the present suit was filed
based on the cause of action dated 18.12.2006 against the four defendants. It
was further held that though the subject matter was one and the same, the cause
of action differs and on that basis, the trial court has rightly come to the
conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for as all
the issues are to be decided only after full trial. When the trial court came to
the conclusion that even though the subject matter is one and the same but the
cause of action is different and therefore, whethere the plaintiff is entitled
to the relief as prayed for to be decided after full trial, this Court does not
find any infirmity in the said order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition
is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
ses
To
The III Additional Subordinate Judge,
Madurai