Seeking to review the order passed by this Court, dated 05.07.2017, in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1258 of 2017, the review application has been filed by the petitioner / defendant.
2. It is contended that in the order passed by this Court, there is no reference about the entitlement of the first plaintiff to lay the suit and inasmuch as the petitioner / defendant has also raised a ground of non- maintainability of the suit as regards the first plaintiff also, in such view of the matter, the order passed by this Court has to be reviewed.
3. It is seen that the order impugned in the civil revision petition is with reference to the application seeking for rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioner / defendant, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further seen that the petitioner, being the defendant in the suit, has laid the application contending that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to institute the suit. However, the Court below has discountenanced the relief sought for by the petitioner / defendant and hence, challenging the same, the civil revision petition has been laid by her. This Court also finding that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property i.e., the second plaintiff having purchased the suit property from its owner through her power agent, namely, the first plaintiff, it is seen that the plaintiffs have cause of action and hence, concurred with the findings of the Court below and dismissed the civil revision petition.
4. On a reading of the plaint, it is seen that even when the first plaintiff was having the power of attorney, the petitioner / defendant attempted to encroach into the suit property and this has resulted in laying of the complaint by the first plaintiff and following the same, survey measurement process has also been initiated by the first plaintiff and thereafter, the first plaintiff has executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property to the second plaintiff. It is further seen that even thereafter, the petitioner / defendant attempted to lay foundation in the suit property without any right and the same further necessitated the first plaintiff, who is the husband of the second plaintiff, to lay the necessary complaint before the police officials and also the revenue officials and in the cause of action para, it is clearly averred that it is only the first plaintiff, being the husband of the second plaintiff, who has taken all the measures on behalf of the second plaintiff with a view to protect the encroachments attempted to be made by the petitioner / defendant. In such view of the matter, the contention that the first plaintiff, as such, has no cause of action at all to lay the suit, in my considered opinion, would not lie at this stage of the matter, particularly considering the reliefs sought for in the suit. On that contention, it cannot be stated that the plaintiffs, as such, have no cause of action to institute the suit. Therefore, this Court finds that in the order dismissing the civil revision petition all the factors have been taken into consideration and accordingly, the order has been passed dismissing the petition of the petitioner / defendant laid to reject the plaint.
5. In the light of the above position, I am of the considered opinion that there is no valid ground made out to review the order passed in the civil revision petition. In such view of the matter, the review application does not merit acceptance and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Thirumangalam..