IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.No. 5967 of 2025

1. Haiyad Bee 2. Syed Riyaz

3. Nayaz

4. Asmath Bi

5. Khamar Taj 6. Nisar Pasha

7. Mehar Taj

8. Akhila Bhanu

9. Ansar Pasha ... Petitioners Vs.

1. K.Allabakshu

2. Shamshadh

3. Parveen Bobby Asif

4. Abdul Rajak

5. Gulzar 6. Habbib 7. Kamrun 8. Parveen

9. Anwar Shab

10. Sharif

11. Nagarathna

12. Sundaramoorthy

13. Murali

14. Ganesan

15. Viswanathan

16. Gurappa 17. Anandan 18. Mottappa 19. Soodappa

20. Rajappa

21. Kaverappa 22. Manjunath

23. Kantharaj

24. Madevi

25. Radhamma

26. Sowbagya

27. Sindhu

28. Manjunath

29. Moorthy 30. Muniraj

31. Murugesan

32. Shylaja

33. M/s.Super Source Tech LLP, Rep.by Prakash Palaniswamy

34. M/s.Protium Finance Limited, formerly known as Growth Source Financial Technologies Limited, Rep.by Credit Manager, Suresh Muniyappa.

35. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Kelamangalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

36. The State Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its District Collector, Collectorate Office, Krishnagiri. ... Respondents P RAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri to number the suit filed in unnumbered O.S.Sr.No.1191 of 2025 by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.R.Vigneswaran Government Advocate for R35 and R36

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri to number the suit filed in unnumbered O.S.Sr.No.1191 of 2025.

2. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the petitioners herein filed a suit seeking partition of 4/8 share and also for other incidental reliefs seeking declaration that the various sale deeds and gift deeds executed by the respondents from 1997 till the date of filing of the suit are null and void. The said plaint was returned by the trial Court on

28.10.2025 raising certain objections.

3. The petitioners re-presented the plaint along with their explanation on 31.10.2025. However, the plaint was again returned on 06.11.2025 stating that the previous return had not been complied with. If the Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, then the matter ought to be called in open Court. After hearing the petitioners’ submission, it shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits. However, in the case on hand the trial Court returned the plaint once again without considering the explanation offered by the petitioners.

4. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to re-present the plaint along with their explanation, including the original explanation dated 28.10.2025 and additional explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the trial Court shall consider the same and number the plaint, if it is satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners. On the other hand, if the trial Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, the matter shall be called in open Court and the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to make their submission.

5. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. The Registry is directed to return the original plaint to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

26.11.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No ms To

1. The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Kelamangalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

3. The District Collector, State Government of Tamil Nadu, Collectorate Office, Krishnagiri.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

ms

26.11.2025