The trial court must consider interlocutory applications on merits, not dispose of them ministerially.

ORDER

Heard Lieutenant Colonel Sandeep Dewan (Retd), petitioner in person and Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.The revision is of a very narrow scope, namely challenging the repeated return of an application filed under Section 340 of the Criminal Civil Procedure , now U/s 379 of BNSS in OS No.65 of 2022. The application has been returned by the Court on 04.01.2025 and the same has been represented on 06.01.2025. However, the court has again returned on 21.01.2025 and the applicant has represented the application on 28.01.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court ought to have numbered the application and, after hearing the respondents, passed a considerable order on merits, without keeping the application at the unnumbered stage, as has been done in the present case.

3.The party-in-person also relies on the order of this court in CRP. No.

4187/2022, wherein, in similar circumstances in respect of the earlier application, this court had directed that any application filed by either of the parties should have been taken up and an order should be passed on a judicial side, not disposed of on a ministerial side. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited , represented through its Project Director, reported in(2021) 3 LW 677.

4. In the light of the above, even though there may be force in the submission of the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is in the habit of repeatedly filing interlocutory applications and protracting the proceedings and that the present application seeking to initiate proceedings against the respondent is also not maintainable in view of earlier orders passed by this Court with regard to the status of the company, taking note of the fact the trial court has not numbered the application, despite two compliances and representations having been made, in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Selvaraj (cited supra), I am inclined to direct the trial Court to hear the petitioner on maintainability of the application and pass a judicial order and the original papers shall be returned to the petitioner in person by the registry, across receiving an acknowledgement and the petitioner shall represent the application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the same from the Registry of this Court and thereafter the application shall be heard for maintainability in the open court and the District Judge, Udhagamandalam at Nilgris shall hear the petitioner on the maintainability of the application in the open court and pass orders within a period of two weeks thereof. Since the respondent has entered an appearance in revision, the trial Court shall also hear the objections of the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the application before passing final orders.

5. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.