SUSEELAMMAL Vs. KUMARAN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to strike off the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, and to call for the records of the said suit and dismiss the same.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the suit filed by the respondent, in O.S.No.241 of 2009, is an abuse of the process of law. THE Registry of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, ought not to have numbered the plaint, since the prayer in the suit is not proper. Though, the pleadings discloses the fact that Late Mahadevan, the petitioner's husband, has borrowed the money to the tune of Rs.42,500/- and had executed the promissory note, the plaintiff had sought for a 'personal decree' against the petitioner, which is contrary to law.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had further submitted that it would be open to the petitioner to counter the claims and the allegations made by the respondent, in the written statement to be filed in the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009. THErefore, there is no necessity, for this Court, to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the suit, in O.S.No.241 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, as prayed for by the petitioner.