1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1105 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Rev.Father M.Irudhayaraj .. Petitioner/1st Defendant Vs. 1.Dr.Rajagopal .. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.The Diocese of Tanjore Society, Thanjavur rep. by its Secretary, Thanjavur Town, Thanjavur District. .. 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the plaint in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 from the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur and strike off the same and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent No.2 : No appearance ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint filed in Original Suit No.302 of 2010, which is pending on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur. 2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.302 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of specific performance, return of advance money and also for setting aside the sale deed executed in favour of the second respondent by the first respondent. In order to strike off the plaint filed in Original Suit No.302 of 2010, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the suit sale agreement has come into existence on 23.03.2007 between the plaintiff and first defendant/revision petitioner and on the same day the wife of the plaintiff, by name, Vasuki has executed a receipt in favour of the first defendant and thereby received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same has not been mentioned in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 and therefore the plaint filed in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 is bad for suppression of material facts and since Original Suit No.302 of 2010 has been instituted for the discretionary relief of specific performance, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 is liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that Original Suit No.302 of 2010 has been instituted for the reliefs sought for therein on the basis of the sale agreement dated 23.03.2007 and the revision petitioner has already filed written statement and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed and the first respondent is entitled to get a decree only on the basis of the sale agreement dated 23.03.2007 and since Original Suit No.302 of 2010 has been instituted only on the basis of the sale agreement dated 23.03.2007, no averments need be mentioned with regard to the alleged receipt, which has come into existence between the wife of the first respondent/plaintiff and the revision petitioner/ first defendant and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is an admitted fact that the first respondent as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.302 of 2010. In the plaint filed in Original Suit No.302 of 2010, it has been specifically averred that in between the plaintiff and first defendant, an agreement of sale has come into existence on 23.03.2007. The reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 are to direct the first defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, for directing the first defendant to return advance money and also for setting aside the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. 6. Considering the fact that Original Suit No.302 of 2010 has been instituted on the basis of the sale agreement dated 23.03.2007 and the relief sought for therein are based upon the sale agreement dated 23.03.2007, the plaintiff cannot be blamed by way of saying that he suppressed the alleged receipt, which has come into existence in between the wife of the plaintiff and first defendant. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has mainly contended that since the discretionary relief of specific performance has been sought for in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 and since in the plaint some material aspects have been suppressed, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of specific performance. The main aspect urged on the side of the revision petitioner can be urged in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 and further the same can be decided only after getting proper evidence. Since the main attack made on the side of the revision petitioner could be decided only in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 and since Original Suit No.302 of 2010 has been filed on the basis of the sale agreement dated 23.03.2007, this Court is of the view that by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.302 of 2010 cannot be rejected and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur. +1 CC to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate, Sr.NO.39816 +1 CC to Mr.D.Rajagopal, Advocate, SR.No.39810 smn C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1105 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 15.11.2011 TR : 28.11.2011 : 3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/