Courts are limited to determining the legal validity of plaintiffs' claims at the plaint numbering stage, without requiring detailed scrutiny of pleadings.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

This matter has been listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned”

at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, this Court, by order dated 28.04.2025 allowed the above revision with a direction to the petitioners to represent the suit. However, in paragraph No.10 of the said order, inadvertently a typographical error has crept in, wherein it has been mentioned as if direction has been issued to the Registry to return the original plaint to the petitioners instead of the learned counsel for the petitioners, which requires to be modified.

3. This Court perused the order dated 28.04.2025, more particularly, para No.10 of the said order and this Court is satisfied that the original plaint should be returned to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

Accoringly, para No.10 of the order dated 28.04.2025 shall read as hereunder:

“10. Registry is directed to return the original plaint to the learned counsel for the petitioners.”

A .D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

skt

4. All the other observations made in the earlier order dated 28.04.2025 shall remain intact.

5. Registry is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections and issue fresh order copies to the parties.

12.09.2025 skt Note to office: Issue order copy on 16.09.2025.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA C.R.P.No.1716 of 2025

1.G.Elumalai

2.G.Selvam

3.A.Kuppayee

4.K.Lakshmi

5.M.Alagammal ..Petitioners/Plaintiffs Vs S.Siddhan ..Respondent/Defendant Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India , against the return order dated 19.03.2025 made in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.1119 of 2024 passed by the Subordinate Court, Sangagiri.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed against the return order dated

19.03.2025 made in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.1119 of 2024 passed by the Subordinate Court, Sangagiri.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this revision is as under:-

(a) The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled to be owners of the suit property and to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.376 of 2012 as null and void.

(b) The suit was filed on 29.11.2024. The concerned court has returned the plaint and it was represented on various dates. The return endorsements and the compliance notes of the counsel for petitioners are extracted hereunder :-

1.

Challenge in this revision is made against the order of returning the plaint dated 19.03.2025 which reads as follows:-

“19.03.25 Returned.

Heard in open court. Explanation given in plaint perused and the same is not legally sustainable. Hence the plaint is returned for the same reason given on the previous return order.”

3. Since the order impugned is between the petitioner and the court this court is of the opinion that no notice is required to be sent to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the counsel representing the returned bundle after compliance, the court had repeatedly returned the bundle for the very same reasons. He would contend that the correctness of the pleadings cannot be gone into at the stage of numbering and when the petitioners have an independent and substantive cause of action in the present suit, the trial court ought not to have returned the plaint. He would further submit that court during scrutiny of the plaint is bound to ascertain only to the extent whether the plaintiffs have a legally recognised or enforceable right and nothing more and further the court cannot go into the suffici