V.Jayaraman (Deceased),1j.Ashok Kumar v. S.Sivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.No.2557 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.10934 of 2026 V.Jayaraman (Deceased)
1. J.Ashok Kumar
2. Sujeethra
3. S.Megala All are residing at Old No.17, New No.2, First Floor, Padmanabhan Nagar Main Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai - 600 094.
..Petitioner(s) Vs S.Sivakumar S/o Subramani, "Sadhana Stores", Old No.17, New No.2, Ground Floor, Padmanabhan Nagar Main Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai - 600 094.
..Respondent(s) Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 10.04.2026 made in M.P.No.1 of 2025 in R.L.T.A.SR.14916 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai by dismissing the Appeal R.L.T.A.No.87 of 2026 pending on the file of II Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.J.Hemalatha For Respondent(s):
Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the landlord/petitioner herein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2.Before the Trial Court, the petitioner therein has preferred I.A.No.1 of 2025 in R.L.T.A.SR.No.14916 of 2025 to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and the same was allowed.
3.Aggrieved by the same, the landlords therein has preferred this present Civil Revision Petition.
4.Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The Lower Appellate Court can entertain only those persons who were the parties to the proceedings of R.L.T.O.P. In this case, the parties in R.L.T.A are different and not in tune with the Decree and Judgment passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.559 of 2023 and hence, the appeal is inherently not maintainable. She further submits that the Lower Appellate Court failed to see the respondents have deliberately altered the cause title to circumvent legal requirements and the same has erroneously facilitated
such abuse by allowing the application. The Lower Appellate Court shall examine maintainability before numbering and failed to do so rendered the numbering is invalid and mechanical without scrutiny is non application of mind. Therefore, she prays to allow this Civil Revision Petition. 5.Learned counsel for the respondent filed counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner is misleading the Court that there was a mistake of name in the cause title and that some improper name has been inserted in the name of S.Suchithra, the 2nd petitioner herein. In fact, the name of S.Suchitra has been spelt as Sujeethra in the cause title. In the schedule of the decree granted by the Rent Court, the premises let out to the petitioner/the respondent was mentioned as "Sadhana Stores" as mentioned by the petitioner in the petition for eviction.
Further, it is not at all an error committed either by the respondent or the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, these accusations are tantamounting to the commission oof perjury under section 192 of I.P.C. The petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact about the numbering of the appeal as R.L.T.A.No.87 of 2026 after the allowance of the condonation petition and its transfer to the II Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, Chennai. He further submits that only to drag on the proceedings, the condone delay application has been filed and they have no valid defence to proceed with the same. Therefore, he prays to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.On perusal of records, it is only 14 days occurred while preferring an appeal and the said delay was accepted by the Appellate Court and the reason assigned by the petitioner is justifiable.
8.When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords submits that the name of the 2nd petitioner Suchithra was wrongly mentioned as if Sujeethra by the respondent while they preferring an appeal before the Appellate Court. If at all, the name has been mentioned wrongly it will create complications while executing the decree. Therefore, the respondent is directed to correct the spelling of the name of the 2nd petitioner. 9.It was also brought to the notice of this Court that in the cause title, they have mentioned "Sadhana Stores" but on verification of cause title in R.L.T.O.P.No.559 of 2023 as well as in R.L.T.A, there was no such "Sadhana Stores". Therefore, the said "Sadhana Stores" shall be deleted. 10.The Appellate Court is directed to take the case on file within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter proceed with the case.
11.With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PAM To 1.The I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.The II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
PAM C.R.P.No.2557 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.10934 of 2026 17-06-2026