S.Subbulakshmi vs The District Collector,

Court
Madras High Court

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:27.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6727 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012526192026}
1. S.Subbulakshmi
2. D.Padmavathi
3. N.Pushparani
4. K.K.Palani
5. K.K.Sampath
6. E.Vasanth
7. K.K.Jayamani
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Collectorate Compound,
Kanchipuram-501.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram
District
Collectorate Compound,
Kanchipuram-501.
3. The Revenue Division Officer
Kanchipuram-501.
4. The Tahsildar,
Walajabad Taluk Office,
Tahsildar Office Compund,
Kanchipuram.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated
05.10.2026 made in Unnumbared OS.Sr.No.5691 of 2026 on the file of the
Court of the Principal District Munsif at Kanchipuram, by allowing this CRP
and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.V.Subramaniam
Senior Advocate
for K.V.Subramaniam Associatez
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Sunil
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
trial court rejecting the plaint filed by the petitioners even without numbering.
2. The petitioners herein filed the suit seeking declaration that notice
dated 24.07.2026 issued by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act was illegal, void and unenforceable against the plaintiffs and
to set aside the same.
3. The petitioners also sought for an injunction restraining the
respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property, either by dispossessing or by demolishing any
structure standing thereon, otherwise than by due process of law.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
4. By impugned order, the trial court rejected the plaint as not
maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this
Court.
5. It is seen from the papers that the Civil Revision Petition has been
numbered by the Registry, subject to the maintainability.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
suit property is a natham land and hence the respondents/Government Officials
are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment
Act. According to the learned counsel, when the property does not belong to
the Government, the very notice issued by the respondents under the provisions
of the said Act is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to
the relief of declaration as prayed for. The learned counsel further submitted
that the trial court without considering the said plea raised by the petitioners
erroneously rejected the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that when
a plaint is rejected in unnumbered stage, the petitioners need not challenge the
same by filing an appeal and they can straight away file revision challenging the
rejection order.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the
following judgments.
(i) Selvaraj and others Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India
Limited, reported in 2021 4 CTC 539
(ii)Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Represented by Senior
Regional Manager-Retail, Coimbatore Retail Region Vs. C.M.Hari Raj
and others reported in 2002 (1) CTC 742
(iii) Sunnath Jamath Committee of Masjid-e-Akash rep. By its
President Vs. K.Anthonysamy and others reported in 2009 (5) CTC 871
(iv) Dayyala Prabhakar Vs. Aggeti Kamalamma and others reported in
2026 (1) Andh LD 759.
8. In view of the definition of the expression “decree” under Section 2(2)
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an order rejecting a plaint is a deemed
decree and therefore the same is appealable one.
9. The question as to whether an order rejecting a plaint even before
numbering could be termed as a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Code of Civil Procedure was considered by this Court in T. Kumar Vs.
Pavai Varam Educational Trust reported in AIR 2023 Mad 42 and ultimately
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
it was held that such orders are deemed decree for the purpose of appeal. The
relevant observation reads as follows:
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted in the light of the clear wordings of Section
2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure. The definition of the expression
'decree' contains three limbs:
(i) The first limb of the definition defines the expression
decree by words;
(ii) The second limb of definition is an inclusive definition, it
brings an order rejecting the plaint and an order determining any
one of the questions under Section 144 of CPC within the fold of
definition of decree.
(iii) The third limb of definition is an exclusive definition, it
excludes any adjudication from which an appeal shall lie as an
appeal from an order and any order dismissing the suit for default
from the purview of definition of expression 'decree'.

7. A close scrutiny of the definition of the expression 'decree'
would make it clear that the draft man himself had a doubt that
order of rejection of plaint may not come within
the wordly definition of the expression 'decree'. Since it will not
come within the definition as found in first limb of Section 2(2) of
CPC, he had chosen to bring it under the inclusive definition by
including it in the second limb of definition. Therefore, Section 2(2)
of Code of Civil Procedure does not make any distinction between
the rejection of plaint before numbering and after numbering. In
such case, an order of rejection of plaint even before numbering of
the same, shall be treated as a deemed decree and consequently the
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
revision is not maintainable, in view of availability of regular
appeal remedy under Section 96 of CPC.
8 . It is also useful to refer to the judgement of this Court reported
inMANU/TN/2570/2016 (A.Ramanathan vs. Tamarai Mills Ltd)
wherein this Court after referring to the unreported judgement of
the Division Bench of this Court made in C.R.P.(PD). No. 1211 of
2013 dated 28.08.2014 observed as follows:-
"12. The Division Bench of this Court, in the unreported
Judgment dated 28.08.2014 referred supra, has clearly
held that if a Court of Law passes an order for rejection of
plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code it
has the force of "Decree" and therefore, regular "Appeal"
lies under Civil Procedure Code and in fact, no "Revision"
would lie."
9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that this Civil Revision Petition challenging
the order passed by the Court below rejecting the plaint in
unnumbered stage is not maintainable.
10. In view of the law laid down in the above mentioned case law, the
present Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order
passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint in unnumbered stage is not at all
maintainable.
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
11. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited case and Sunnath
Jamath Committee case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, t hough
this Court interfered with orders passed by the trial court in a revision, the
maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition was not taken up for
consideration. Therefore, the said judgments will not be helpful to the
petitioners in any way. In all the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the maintainability of petition was not taken up for
consideration.
12. In Selvaraj case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
this Court issued certain guidelines for numbering of plaint and frequent return
by the trial Court without considering the explanation offered by the plaintiff.
However, in the said case also the question of maintainability of a revision
against an order rejecting a plaint has not been considered. Therefore, the said
judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not helpful to
his case.
13. In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v.
Tuticorin Educational Society reported in Manu/SC/1365/2019 = 2019 (9)
SCC 538, the Apex Court held that when an alternative remedy of appeal is
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
available before the regular Civil Court, this Court shall not entertain revision
by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the
same is binding on this Court.
14. In view of the same, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not
maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the
impugned order of rejection of the plaint by filing a regular appeal before the
First Appellate Court.
15. While calculating the limitation for filing the first appeal, the
petitioners are entitled to exclude the time taken by them in prosecuting the
revision before this Court (i.e., from 14.10.2026) to the date of receipt of copy
of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
27.10.2026
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
ub
Note: The Registry is directed to return the original certified copy of the
impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
To
1. The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Collectorate Compound,
Kanchipuram-501.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram
District
Collectorate Compound,
Kanchipuram-501.
3. The Revenue Division Officer
Kanchipuram-501.
4. The Tahsildar,
Walajabad Taluk Office,
Tahsildar Office Compund,
Kanchipuram.
5. The Principal District Munsif,
Kanchipuram.

__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 6727 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
CRP.No.6727 of 2026
27.10.2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:34 pm )