M GURUSAMY DIED Vs. G VIJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No. 261 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani are the revision petitioners, herein. THE first respondent herein has filed the said suit for partition., Pending suit, the pe"titioners herein have filed I.A. No.89 of 2006 under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint. THE said application was dismissed by the Court below on 22.11.2006, hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) MR. Valliappan, learned counsel appear"ing for the petitioner submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the deceased first petitioner herein, who is the father of the second petitioner herein had exe"cuted a registered release deed dated 21.9.2004 in his favour which is prior to the cut off date i.e., 20.12.2004, from that date the first respondent is entitled to benefits if any, under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, hence, the suit filed by her, seeking for partition of the very same property is untenable in law, therefore, the petitioners have filed the application to reject the plaint, which was erroneously re"jected by the Court below; that the disposition or alienation of any property prior to 20.12.2004 cannot be subjected to Section 6 of the Act 39 of 2005; that in order to prove that the marriage of the first respondent was conducted prior to 20.12.2004, the petitioners have marked Exhibit P1 dated 28.9.2005, cer"tified copy of the marriage extract to show that the first respondent got married on 5.2.1989 itself, but the Court below failed to consider it on the erroneous ground that the validity of the said exhibit has to be decided only at the time of trial; that the other reasons assigned for re"jecting the application of the petitioners is un"tenable in law and prayed for allowing the revision petition.

(3.) THE Court is competent to reject a plaint at any state of the proceedings if it finds that conditions under Rule 11 exists. THE provi'sions of Rule 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has got inherent powers to see that vexa"tions litigations are not allowed to take or con'sume the time of the Court. In appropriate cases, directions can be issued by the High Court as well as the Court in which the suit is filed not to entertain the suit.