G. Jayachandran vs M.Palanisamy

CRP No. 7031 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 7031 of 2026
AND CMP No. 30260 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012001582026}
1. G. Jayachandran
S/o. Late. Gurusamy,
Door No.3,
Peace Apartment,
1st Floor,
Elango Nagar,
5th Cross,
Pondicherry.
2. R.Sivaraman
S/o. Radhakrishnan,
Door No.192,
Vasantham City,
Vettuvapalayam,
Nasiyanur Village,
Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
3. S.Nirmala
W/o. Sivaraman,
Door No.192,
Vasantham City,
Vettuvapalayam,
Nasiyanur Village,
Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M.Palanisamy
S/o. M.Muthusamy,
Door No.65,
Kovalan 2nd Street,
Teachers Colony,
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:35 pm )

CRP No. 7031 of 2026
Erode 638 011.
2. K.Moorthy
S/o. Late. Kuppusamy..
Vasantham City,
Vettuvapalayam,
Nasiyanur Village,
Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
3. Suseela
W/o. Nagarajan,
Door No.75/67,
CSI Street,
Nasiyanur Village,
Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the Fair Order and Decreetal order dated 14.07.2025 made in
I.A.No. 8 of 2025 in OS. No. 8 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District
Munsif Court, Erode.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.Ramaraj
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.E.Pratap for R1
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in I.A.No. 8
of 2025 in OS. No. 8 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif
Court, Erode, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:35 pm )

CRP No. 7031 of 2026
under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of plaint came to be dismissed
by the Court below.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
st
appearing on behalf of the 1 respondent and carefully perused the materials
available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed
by the Court below.
st
3.The 1 respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.8 of
2019 seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the alleged
encroachment made over the second item of the suit property. The pleadings
were completed, issues were framed and the case reached the stage of trial.
PW1 was examined on the side of the plaintiff and at that stage, the
petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 filed an application in I.A.No.8 of 2025 under
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of plaint on the ground that the
plaintiff had failed to describe and disclose either the nature of alleged
encroachment or when the encroachment was made in the second item of the
suit property and therefore, there was no cause of action for filing the present
suit.
4.The Court below had dismissed the application mainly on the ground
that a reading of the plaint makes out a cause of action and that it is a triable
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:35 pm )

CRP No. 7031 of 2026
issue, which can be decided only after both parties let in evidence and that the
present application had been filed after the commencement of the trial.
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 petitioners is that a
bare reading of the plaint shows that it does not reveal any cause of action, since
it only vaguely mentions about the demolition of a watercourse and construction
of a compound wall without giving the particulars regarding the alleged
encroachment.
6.In the considered view of this Court, the necessary averments have been
made in the plaint, which will suffice insofar as existence of cause of action is
concerned. How far the plaintiff is able to substantiate this cause of action by
letting in evidence is something which can be decided only after the Court
below records evidence of both sides and deals with the suit on merits.
7.The Court below, while dismissing the application, has come to the
conclusion that the averments made in the plaint makes out a cause of action
and this finding rendered by the Court below does not suffer from any
perversity warranting the interference of this Court.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:35 pm )

CRP No. 7031 of 2026
8.The petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 are not precluded to raise this issue
and the same will be considered by the Court below on its own merits and in
accordance with law while disposing of the suit on merits.
9.In view of the above discussion, the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in
I.A.No. 8 of 2025 in OS. No. 8 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District
Munsif Court, Erode, is sustained.
10.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the
above terms. There shall be a direction to the I Additional District Munsif
Court, Erode, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2019, within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that any
observations made by the Court below while dismissing the application and the
observations made by this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition, will not
have any bearing when the Court below decides the suit on merits. No Costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SSR
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:35 pm )

CRP No. 7031 of 2026
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:35 pm )

CRP No. 7031 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
SSR
To
The I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.
CRP No. 7031 of 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:35 pm )