SATHISHKUMAR Vs. KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk returning the plaint filed by the petitioners for a declaration that their brother E. R. Saravanan was dead, as his whereabouts were not known and as he has not been heard of more than 7 years.

(2.) IN the plaint, it was the contention of the petitioners that their brother E. R. Saravanan was employed in the Madurai City Municipal Corporation as Record Clerk. While so, they have received a letter dated 07.04.1999 from Madurai Corporation stating that their brother Saravanan has gone on medical leave from 05.02.1999 to 27.03.1999 and that he did not report for duty on 28.03.1999. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation have sent a letter dated 23.04.1999 addressed to Saravanan directing him to report for duty within three days from the date of receipt of the letter, failing which it was indicated that he would be suspended temporarily. Since their brother Saravanan failed to report for duty before the Corporation, he was suspended as per proceedings dated 30.07.1999. Subsequently, the Corporation made a paper publication in Malaimurasu, dated 22.01.2002 informing the public that the said Saravanan was suspended with effect from 30.07.1999 and later he was dismissed from service, as per proceedings dated 05.09.2002.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge was pleased to return the plaint on the ground that the suit against the defendant, who is none other than a relative of the plaintiffs, is not maintainable for the relief asked for in the plaint. Even though there are other remarks by the learned trial Judge, those are not necessary to be considered here, as the main issue to be decided is as to whether the learned trial Judge was justified in returning the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable.