The court assessed the adherence to procedural requirements in filing a commercial suit and upheld the lower court's return order for non-compliance.

ORDER

The present civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the non-speaking order of return in C.O.S.No.unnumbered/2024 dated 13.12.2024 and direct the learned Sub Court, Theni, to number the C.O.S.No.unnumbered/2024 by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a commercial suit which was originally returned for jurisdiction and thereafter compliance has also been made. However, the plaint has been repeatedly returned for no reasons. Hence, he seeks that the non- speaking return order be set aside and that the learned Sub Judge, Theni be directed to take on file C.O.S.No.unnumbered/2024 dated 13.12.2024 and proceed in accordance with law.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

4. Even though the plaint had been returned on various occassions, finally on 07.11.2024, it was returned indicating that the address of the defendant should be correctly given. The petitioner had filed a complaince report indicating that the directions had been complied with and re-presented the plaint. However, noting that the previous return had not been complied with, the plaint was again returned.

5.A perusal of the complaince report along with the plaint indicates that the petitioner neither corrected the address of the defendant nor furnish any explanation as to why the address given by him in the plaint was correct. Even though the petitioner atempts to convenice the Court that the address mentioned in the plaint is the same address to which he had sent notice to the respondents and the respondents had also replied to the said notice to substantiate his claim that the address is correct, it is to be noted that such explanation was not given by the petitioner in the complaince report to the return dated 07.11.2024. If the petitioner had made such clarification to the Court below, the doubts in the minds of the Court could have been clarified.

6. It is also noted that when the matter was listed for hearing before the Court below on 02.04.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter the matter was listed on 04.04.2024, on which date only on the endorsement made by him to return the plaint, the plaint had been returned.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any material error in the return made by the Court below. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to explain his claim to the return dated 07.11.2024 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such return is complied, it is for the learned Sub Judge, to look into the retun and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

03.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn Note:Registry is directed to return the original plaint to the learned counsel for the petitioner.