The Commissioner v. S.Naganandhini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY REV.APLW.No. 193 of 2025 AND W.M.P.NO. 30147 OF 2025
1. The Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Vellore.
2. The Registrar, (Birth and Death) Vellore Corproation Zone -IV, Division 21, Vellore District.
...Applicants Vs.
1. S.Naganandhini W/o.V.G.Sathish, No.12, Ravandi Venugopal, 3rd Street, Pichanoor, Gudiyattam Vellore District.
2.Mr.V.G.Sathish, No.79/44, Big Street, Nedumpuli, Panapakkam, Vellore - 631 052.
(R2 Suo Motu Impleaded Vide Order Dated 28.01.2026 made in Rev.Aplw.193/2025 By DBCJ) ... Respondents Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order passed in the Writ Petition No.5207 of 2025, dated 18.02.2025. For Applicants Mr.Prabu.P.S For Respondents Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, Page Nos.1/5
ORDER
The review application is filed to review the order dated 18.02.2025 made in W.P.No.5207 2025. By the said order, the second respondent, namely the Registrar (Birth and Death), Vellore Corporation Zone-IV, Division-21, Vellore District, was directed to carry out the correction in the column with respect to the name of the petitioner's child as "S.Aadhanyan" instead of "S.Akhileshwar" and issue a corrected Birth Certificate. It was further order that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks, from the date of production of the web copy of that order.
2. The review application is filed on the ground that though the writ petition was filed by S.Naganandhini, the mother of the child, when the exercise was undertaken, the father of the child, namely, Mr.V.G.Sathish had objected to the same.
3. In view there of, since the family dispute cannot be taken to the Corporation, this Court entertained the review and directed suo motu impleadment of the said Mr.V.G.Sathish, who is opposing the name correction and notice was also ordered.
Page Nos.2/5
4. Today, it is reported that the private notice has been taken out by the Corporation is returned as 'unclaimed' by the said respondent.
5. In view thereof, service is treated as complete. Even though the 2nd respondent objected before the Corporation, he has not chosen to come before this Court and oppose the prayer to correct the name. When it is pleaded that the petitioner in the writ petition is having the custody of the child and has duly made an application for correction of name and especially, the father of the child, the 2nd respondent herein, having chosen not to contest the review application, the correction shall be made.
6. I am of the view that no further review is needed in respect of the order and the authority can effect the name change as ordered by this Court. Accordingly, the Review Application is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected petition is closed.
12-02-2026 ari Page Nos.3/5
Page Nos.4/5
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ari REV.APLW No. 193 of 2025 AND W.M.P.No. 30147 of 2025 12-02-2026 Page Nos.5/5