M/S.Chamundeeswary Estates Private Limited, v. M/S.T.Jayaraman(Firm),

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 04.03.2026 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA and C.M.P.No.5955 of 2026 M/s.Chamundeeswary Estates Private Limited Represented by its Director, Mr.Rathna Sabapathy Lenin Having its registered office at No.21 Mount Road, Little Mount, Saidapet Chennai 600 015.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.M/s.T.Jayaraman (Firm) Rep.by its Managing Partner No.9, K.R.Koil Street, 1st Floor West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.

2.M/s.Sanluck International Rep.by its Partner, S.C.Sanjeev Kumar Old No.867, K.G.S.Vrudhi 1-B, First Floor, Opp G3 Police Station Poonamallee High Road Chennai 600 010.

3.S.C.Sanjeev Kumar 4.S.C.Vijay Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Return Memo dated 11.02.2026 rendered in E.A.SR.No.9197 of 2026 in E.P.No.4430 of 2021 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.Dinesh Balachandran

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the return memo dated 11.02.2026 rendered in E.A.SR.No.9197 of 2026 in E.P.No.4430 of 2021 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioner filed a petition in E.A.SR.No.9197 of 2026 under Order XXI Rule 58(1) a of CPC, to raise the attachment of the schedule property in the above EP and consequently to communicate to the Registering Officer within whose limits the schedule property is situated that the Attachment Order dated 18.10.2022 passed in the above E.P.No.4430 of 2021 stands raised by the Court and to make necessary entries regarding the same in the records. The said EA.SR.No.9197 of 2026 was returned on 11.02.2026. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the application in E.A.SR was returned in the SR stage, on the ground of maintainability, which issue could have been decided only after numbering the petition and taking it up on file and hearing the parties. The learned counsel submitted that the learned 2/4

Trial Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law by refusing to number the petitioner's application and returning the same at the SR stage. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed.

4. This Court has gone through the impugned return memo and finds that the learned Judge has only called for an explanation from the petitioner on the maintainability of the petition and further granted him two weeks time to represent the petition. Therefore, from the endorsement made in the return memo, it is clear that there is no determination of the issue and hence, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by a mere return memo. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and thus is dismissed. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to re-present the papers along with his explanation within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in his petition, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in a manner known to law, if so advised. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

04.03.2026 (1/2) Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No dna 3/4

N.MALA,J dna Note: Issue order copy today (04.03.2026).

The Registry is directed to return the original papers to the petitioner today.

To The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

and C.M.P.No.5955 of 2026 (1/2) 04.03.2026 4/4