1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.97 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 R.Thangasamy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.R.Natarajan 2.R.Duraisamy .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint in Original Suit No.49 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred praying to strike off the plaint filed in Original Suit No.49 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani. 2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.49 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as first defendant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has elaborately contended that the suit property is nothing, but a well and also pathway and the same is not the exclusive property of the first respondent/plaintiff, but the present suit has been instituted as if the first respondent/plaintiff is having absolute right over the suit property and further the first respondent/plaintiff has inflated the value of the suit so as to file the same on the file of the Sub Court, Palani and under the said circumstances, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.49 of 2009 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and therefore the same is liable to be strike off by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. For considering the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the nature of the reliefs sought for in the plaint. In the plaint, it has been specifically prayed that the plaintiff is having right of taking water from the suit well. The relief of injunction has been sought for to the extent that the plaintiff is having right of taking water as per his share and the same should not be restricted by the defendant and he should be restrained by means of injunction Further in the property description, the common well and also pathway have been shown as suit property. 5. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.49 of 2009, one can easily discern that the first respondent/ plaintiff https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 has not claimed exclusive right over the suit well and he has not claimed exclusive right of taking water from the suit well. Since the first respondent/plaintiff has not claimed exclusive right of taking water from the suit well, the Court can come to a conclusion that the plaint filed in Original Suit No.49 of 2009 is within the purview of laws. It is not an exaggeration to say that the first respondent/plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.49 of 2009 only on the basis of his share in the suit property Therefore it is needless to say that the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. However the Sub Court, Palani is strictly directed to dispose of Original Suit No.49 of 2009 before the end of March, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge,Palani. Copy to: The Section Officer, Judicial Department, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to MR.C.Vakeeswaran, Advocate SR.No.2157 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.97 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 20.01.2011 smn PA/03.02.2011/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/