BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 08.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

1.Lakshmi

2.Saraswathi

3.Janaki

4.Shanthi ... Petitioners

Vs

1.The Joint Commissioner (HR and CE Department),

First Floor,

Tiruppur Regulated Market Complex

Tiruppur-Palladam Road

Town Extension

Thirupur 641 604.

2.The Assistant Commissioner (HR and CE Department)

11 AD, Saminathapuram

1st Cross Street

Karur District - 639 001.

3.Arulmigu Bala Subramaniyaswamy Temple

Rep by its Executive Officer

Vennaimalai

Karur District 639 006. ... Respondents

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Honourable Sub-Court, Karur to number the Plaint in O.S.SR.No.16055 of 2025 upon re-presentation without insisting for i) Revenue records relating to the Suit property and ii) certified copies of the HR and CE Order dated 06.05.2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj For R1 & R2 : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.P.Aathimoola Pandian standing counsel

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, to number the plaint in O.S.SR.No16055 of 2025, upon re-presentation without insisting for i) revenue records relating to the suit property and ii) certified copy of the order of the HR and CE Department, dated 06.05.2025.

2.Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Aathimoola Pandian, learned standing counsel takes notice for the third respondent.

3.The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.SR.No16055 of 2025 seeking for the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit property along with other reliefs. The plaint was returned by the trial Court on two occasions for rectification of certain defects. After carrying out the defects, the petitioners re-presented the plaint twice. Subsequently, when the suit was listed on 28.10.2025, the Court below had once again returned the plaint stating that the revenue records relating to the suit property were not produced and the certified copy of the order passed by the HR & CE has also not been produced.

Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of Civil Revision Petition would submit that returning the plaint by the Court below is a ministerial act. He would further submit that if the plaint is not numbered, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, he seeks interference of this Court with the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

5.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.Admittedly, the trial Court has to follow the procedure contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, while numbering the plaint. Further, this Court by an order dated 16.07.2021, in C.R.P. (MD)Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 & 330 of 2020 has also issued directions to the Registry of the trial Court for numbering the plaint strictly in accordance with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC.

7.The petitioners/plaintiffs filed O.S.SR.No16055 of 2025 for declaration and for consequential injunction. However, the plaint was returned by the trial Court twice. After rectifying the defects, the petitioners re-presented the said plaint. However, for the third time, the Court below has again returned the plaint on 28.10.2025, stating that the revenue records relating to the property were not produced and the certified copy of the order passed by the HR & CE has also not been produced.

8.It is to be noted that in the absence of any original documents, which are to be annexed along with the plaint at the time of numbering the plaint, such a prayer sought for by the plaintiff cannot be considered by the trial Court. The crux of the petitioners' contention is that the trial Court used to return the plaint in a routine manner witho