← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/1657/2025disposed of

Jeejababy Jayaramaiah v. B. Murugesh

2026-06-15Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Jeejababy Jayaramaiah ... Petitioner in all CRPs Vs.

1.B.Murugesh, Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.439, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

2.V.Jaya Chandra Bhanu Reddy, Collector, Krishnagiri Dist.

3.Edwin Sunder Singh, Executive Engineer & Admin Officer, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit, Bagalur Road, Hosur - 635 109.

4.Selvam, Surveyor, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit, Bagalur Road, Hosur - 635 109.

... Respondents in both C.R.P.Nos.1657, 1675 & 1680 of 2025 Page No.1 of 8

5.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

6.Executive Engineer-cum-Admin Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit, Bagalur Road, Hosur - 635 109, Krishnagiri Dist.

... Respondents in C.R.P.Nos.1659 & 1669 of 2025 Prayer in C.R.P.No.1657 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the common docket orders passed by the Principal Sub ordinate Judge at Hosur in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.318 of 2020 dated 20.03.2024 on the file of Court.

Prayer in C.R.P.No.1659 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the common docket orders passed by the Principal Sub ordinate Judge at Hosur in I.A.No.8 of 2022 in I.A.No.4 to 7 of 2021 in O.S.No.318 of 2020 dated 20.03.2024 on the file of Court.

Prayer in C.R.P.No.1669 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the docket orders passed by the Principal Sub ordinate Judge at Hosur in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.318 of 2020 dated 20.03.2024 on the file of Court. Prayer in C.R.P.No.1675 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the common docket orders passed by the Principal Sub ordinate Judge at Hosur in Page No.2 of 8

I.A.No.7 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.318 of 2020 dated 20.03.2024 on the file of Court.

Prayer in C.R.P.No.1680 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the common docket orders passed by the Principal Sub ordinate Judge at Hosur in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.318 of 2020 dated 20.03.2024 on the file of Court.

For Petitioner (in both CRPs) : Mr.P.Subba Reddy ***** COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned common order, dated 20.03.2024 dismissing the interlocutory applications in O.S.No.318 of of 2021, namely I.A.No.4 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020, I.A.No.8 of 2022 in I.A.Nos.4 to 7 of 2021, I.A.No.5 of 2021, I.A.No.7 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 and I.A.No.6 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 respectively.

2. Under the impugned common order, the trial court, namely the Principal Sub Court, Hosur has dismissed the suit as well as the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner as not maintainable on Page No.3 of 8

the ground that as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to question the notice issued by the respective respondents. The petitioner categorically contends before this Court that the suit filed by the petitioner as well as the interlocutory applications are maintainable. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order on the ground that without giving an opportunity for the petitioner to convince the trial court that the suit and the interlocutory applications are maintainable, the trial court has passed the impugned common order.

3. As seen from the impugned common order, the petitioner was not heard by the trial court while dismissing the interlocutory applications as well as the suit as not maintainable. In the normal course, the petitioner ought to have heard before the trial court dismisses the applications and the suit as not maintainable. It ought to have been listed before the trial court under the caption "for maintainability" to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to convince the court that the suit as well as the interlocutory applications are maintainable. As seen from the impugned common order, the petitioner's counsel was not heard. Page No.4 of 8

4. The petitioner also categorically contends before this Court through these revisions that the suit as well as the interlocutory applications are maintainable. The contention of the petitioner as raised in these revisions have also not been considered by the trial court through the impugned common order. Being a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in these revisions and being an order under which the petitioner was not heard, this Court is of the considered view that, necessarily, the impugned common order has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration with regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner. The suit was filed for recovery of damages from the respective respondents on the ground that the petitioner's building was demolished without authority under law by the respective respondents.

5. For the foregoing reasons, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by quashing the impugned common order, dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Hosur and remanding the matter back Page No.5 of 8

to the very same court for fresh consideration with regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial court, namely the Principal Sub Court, Hosur is directed to list the suit as well as the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner under the caption "for maintainability" on 01.07.2026. The petitioner's counsel shall appear before the trial court on the aforesaid date without fail and shall argue the matter before the trial court with regard to the maintainability of the suit and interlocutory applications, which are the subject matter of these revisions. The trial court is directed to consider the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and decide as to whether the suit and the interlocutory applications are maintainable or not.

If the suit and the interlocutory applications are found to be maintainable, the trial court is directed to number the same, if it is otherwise in order and issue notice to the respective respondent. If the suit and the interlocutory applications are found not maintainable, the trial court is directed to pass a speaking order after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner. Page No.

6. With the aforesaid directions, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

15.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To The Principal Sub Court, Hosur.

Page No.7 of 8

ABDUL QUDDHOSE , J.

sp 15.06.2026 Page No.8 of 8