M.JOTHIRAMAN.J.

Today the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”. Both sides heard.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the year of the civil revision petitions is mentioned as ‘2023’ in the case bundles, there occurred a typographical error in the order dated 24.09.2025 wherein it has been typed as CRP.Nos.3554, 3560 and 3567 of 2025 instead of “CRP.Nos.3554, 3560 and 3567 of 2023”. Hence, the same may be corrected in all the places of the order copy.

3.Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the seventh line of paragraph No.5 of the aforesaid order, it has been mentioned as the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner instead of “the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before the trial Court”. Hence, he prayed that necessary correction may be carried out in paragraph No.5 of the aforesaid order.

4. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the order dated 24.09.2025 and issue fresh copy of the order to the learned counsel for the parties.

06.02.2026 rap M.JOTHIRAMAN.J.

rap

06.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.09.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN CRP.Nos.3554, 3560 & 3567 of 2025 A.Amutha ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Plaintiff in all CRPs Versus P.Maheswari ... Respondent / Respondent / Defendant in all CRPs Common Prayer:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decretal order dated 25.04.2019 made in I.A.Nos. 86, 87 and 85 of 2018, in Un.number. O.S.SR.No.694 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge, Salem.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kousik in all CRPs For Respondent : Mr.N.R.S.Ganesan in all CRPs

COMMON ORDER

Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

2. The suit in Unnumbered O.S.SR.No.694 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Salem was filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note. At the time of presenting the plaint, the plaintiff did not pay the Court fee, and subsequently, the plaintiff chose to pay the Court fee after a delay of 622 days.

The plaintiff filed the following applications:-

(i) I.A.No.85 of 2018 in Unnumbered O.S.SR.No.694 of 2016 under Sections 148 and 151 of the CPC, seeking to condone the delay of 201 days in re-presenting the plaint that had been returned on 17.11.2017.

(ii) I.A.No.86 of 2018 in Unnumbered O.S.SR.No.694 of 2016 under Sections 149 and 151 of the CPC, seeking to condone the delay in paying the Court fee in the above suit.

(iii) I.A.No.87 of 2018 in Unnumbered O.S.SR.No.694 of 2016 under Sections 148 and 151 of the CPC, seeking to condone the delay of 622 days in re-representing the suit after the rectifying the defects (quarries).

3. Upon hearing the submissions of the revision petitioner, the Court below dismissed all these applications vide order dated 25.04.2019. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the plaint was filed on 18.01.2016 for recovery of money based on a promissory note dated 20.01.2013. At the time of filing the suit on 18.01.2016, the entire Court fee of Rs.35,558/- was not paid by the revision petitioner.

Therefore, the suit was not numbered at the inception. The Registry of the trial Court returned the plaint to the petitioner to rectify the defects in the filing. Instead of paying the Court fee, the petitioner failed to comply and later re- presented the plaint along with an application under Sections 149 and 151 of the CPC in I.A.No.86 of 2018, seeking to condone the delay of 622 days in paying the Court fee. The learned counsel further submitted that the delay in representing the plaint was due to the misrepresentation of the petitioner's previous counsel. Consequently, the revision petitioner lodged a complaint dated