Seven Kanchipuram Petitioners Challenging Land-Encroachment Notice Must Appeal, Not Revise, Madras HC Says Rejected Unnumbered Plaint Is Decree

The petitioners filed a suit seeking a declaration that a notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act was invalid, contending that the suit property was natham land, and seeking an injunction against dispossession or demolition except by due process of law.

The Principal District Munsif rejected the plaint before numbering it. The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution; the High Court considered whether that revision was maintainable.

Section 2(2) CPC includes an order rejecting a plaint within the definition of “decree,” without distinguishing between rejection before and after numbering; such an order is therefore appealable under Section 96 CPC.

In T. Kumar v. Pavai Varam Educational Trust, AIR 2023 Mad 42, the Madras High Court held that rejection of an unnumbered plaint is a deemed decree and that a revision is unavailable where a regular appeal lies.

The Court also relied on Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, 2019 (9) SCC 538, for the principle that Article 227 should not be invoked where an effective appellate remedy is available before the regular civil court.

The impugned order rejected the plaint, and Section 2(2) CPC makes such rejection a deemed decree regardless of whether the plaint had been numbered. The petitioners therefore had a statutory remedy by regular appeal under Section 96 CPC.

The Court found the authorities cited by the petitioners unhelpful because they had not considered the maintainability of a revision against rejection of a plaint. The Court did not determine the merits of the petitioners’ claim concerning the character of the land or the validity of the notice.

For limitation, the petitioners were permitted to exclude the period from 14 October 2026 until receipt of a copy of this order; no costs were awarded.