SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI
J.Rathinam – Appellant
Versus
SELVARAJ – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. J.Rathinam S/o.Jambulingam, Alanguttai Forest, Periyakaudapuram, Karipatti Road, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. SELVARAJ S/o.Meesaikaara Aunty

2.Anbu S/o.Murugesan

3.Palani S/o.Minister Gounder

4.Ramamoorthy S/o.Chinnakali 5.Harikrishnan S/o.Sekar

6.Sekar S/o.Molaian Urgounder

7.Kariyamalai S/o.Vairan 8.Natesan S/o.Not Known All respondents are residing at Nonganur, Kalipettai Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District Respondent(s)

PRAYER Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS, praying to set aside the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in CMP.No.525/2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Yercaud.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the order dated

08.10.2025 passed in CMP.No.525/2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Yercaud.

2. The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed an application before the trial Court seeking action against the proposed respondents for trespassing and causing nuisance to her. However, the petition was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that there were no prima facie materials. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner owns a mango grove and that the proposed respondents often trespass into the property and cause interference. However, admittedly, as on date, no documents have been produced to substantiate such acts of interference.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a senior citizen, the respondents are continuously causing interference and trespass and have caused damage to the mango grove. It is further alleged that they illegally removed mangoes worth about Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the District Superintendent of police, Nethimedu, Salem-2, is directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

18-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Yercaud.

2. The District Superintendent of police, Nethimedu, Salem-2.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri CRL RC No. 2409 of

2025

18-11-2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top