Madras High CourtCRP/784/2018disposed of

R.Samyloganathan v. Sitrarasu

2018-03-01Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.03.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR CRP (PD) No. 784 of 2018

1. R. Samyloganathan

2. T. Samypunithavathy .. Petitioners Vs

1. Sitrarasu

2. Nanthagobal

3. Sabarimalai

4. D. Premkumar

5. Selvi

6. Jeya

7. Jeyanthi

8. Vijaya

9. Sangeetha 10.Senthamaraikannan 11.Sivaraman 12.M. Balamurugan 13.R. Maanaveeran 14.V. Thanikachalam 15.N. Saravanan 16.Anandan 17.K. Thilagavathi 18.S.A. Koteeswaran 19.N.Selladurai 20.J.Jayaprakash 21.V.Jayamani

22. J. Kumudam 23.S.Purushotaman

24.C.Meenatchi 25.R. Thirumaran 26.P.Anbazhagan 27.K.Manimegalai 28.K.Mani 29.S.Kumar 30.R.Krishnamoorthy 31.R.Guruprasadh 32.N.Shobana 33.G.Palanivelammalle 34.N.S.K.Valshala 35.R.S. Pandiyan 36.G.Kuppusamy 37.S.Rajadurai 38.K. Velmurugan 39.M.Robert Joseph 40.S.Ravikumar 41.N.Kalpana 42.R.Ramadas 43.R.Jayanthi 44.P.Kumar 45.V.Kumar 46.P.Anbarasan 47.J.Sivakumar 48.T. Arul 49.R. Madhioli 50.M.Rajakumaran 51.P.Santhi 52.Natarajan Ganesh 53.C.T. Natarajan 54.D. Sigamani 55.N. Vairakannu 56.A. Sivakumar

57. The President Marugur Panchayat Union Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the Return Docket Order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. unnumbered /2018 dated 16.02.2018.

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Balavijayan

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the Return Docket Order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in un numbered O.S. No. of 2018 dated 16.02.2018.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and presented the plaint on 25.01.2018. The trial court has returned the said plaint pointing out certain defects in the plaint. The return was complied with and the plaint was represented on 03.02.2018. Again on 16.02.2018, the court below returned the same, directing to explain the reason as to why the relief of declaration of title has not been sought by the petitioners. In the meantime, the petitioners have filed a memo stating that the suit is maintainable and the plaint has to be numbered. Challenging the said return, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court.

3. It is seen from the docket entries, the petitioners have not represented the plaint, subsequent to the return made on 16.02.2018

and only a memo has been filed. Without representing the said plaint, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Civil Revision Petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to re-present the papers with proper explanation, to the satisfaction of the court below, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of such re-presentation, the Subordinate Court, Panruti is directed to consider the same, if it is otherwise in order and number the application, in accordance with law.

4. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs.

01.03.2018 Index : Yes/ No Speaking order/ Non speaking order Note: Registry is directed to return the original plaint to the petitioner after obtaining a copy of the same.

avr

To The Subordinate Court Panruti.

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J., avr CRP (PD) No. 784 of 2018 01.03.2018