RAJU
S. M. Syed Amina Beevi – Appellant
Versus
Thaika Sahib Alim – Respondent
1. The petitioner in the above revision filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, which is yet to be numbered but had to be posted for orders regarding the maintainability, challenges the return of the papers said to have been made by an endorsement of the Sherishtadar of Family Court, Madras dt. 15.6.1993. The Registry of this Court has entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of this revision and hence this revision was directed by me to be posted for orders.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the second respondent in the above revision, viz., the Sherishtadar of Family Court, Madras is not the competent authority to pass orders even for returning the papers and that if at all it is for the presiding officer of the Family Court to pass such orders in this regard. At this stage, this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the objection is only that the Sheristadar has passed the orders, the papers filed into this Court can be taken back and re-presented before the Family Court, so that a direction can be issued to the presiding officer himself to deal with the matter and pass appropriate orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.