IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 11.07.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(PD) No.2034 of 2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 D.K.Ganesan ... Petitioner/Defendant Vs. Arumugam ... Respondent/Plaintiff This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.187 of 2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deivasigamani O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.187 of 2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore. 2. The defendant in O.S.No.187 of 2007 is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit in O.S.No.187 of 2007 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property. The petitioner/defendant has approached this Court directly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the above petition to strike off the plaint. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per the order VII Rule 3 C.P.C., where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property the boundaries should have been mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff and the non mentioning of the same in the plaint schedule suffers from infirmity and the Court should not have taken the plaint on file. He further submits that the sale agreement is also not valid and on that score the Court below should not have taken cognisance of the suit. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the plaint itself should be struck off under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. Under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC what is required to that the plaint shall contain the description of the property sufficient to identify it and in case such property can be identified by boundaries, the plaint shall specify such boundaries. Therefore, the crux of the matter is the description of the property is sufficient to identity is. Further this is not the ground to reject the plaint as per Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 6. In so far as the sale agreement is concerned, its validity could be decided only in the suit after elaborate trial. Hence, there are no merits in the CRP and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rrg To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No-1, Coimbatore. CRP(PD)No.2034 of 2008 ka [co] gkg/22.9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/