BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 21.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR Sri Sowndamman @ Sri Veeramallammal Dharma Trustee, Represented by its Secretary V.Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs

1.A.Balasubramanian

2.J.Nagammal

3.J.Raman

4.J.Jeeva

5.The Joint Commissioner HR and CE Department Madurai.

6.The Commissioner HR and CE Department Chennai.

7.The Secretary HR and CE Department Chennai.

8.The Tahsildar Aathur Taluk Dindigul District.

9.The District Collector Dindigul District.

10.The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO Sitthaiyankottai Aathur Taluk Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to number the OS SR No.459 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dindigul without insisting upon the 1st item of the return dated 19.11.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For R5 to R9 : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the return order dated 19.11.2024 made in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.459 of 2024 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

2.The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.SR.No.459 of 2024 before the Subordinate Court, Dindigul for the relief of declaration and other reliefs. However, the plaint was returned by the trial Court on various occasions for rectification of certain defects and after carrying out the defects, the petitioner had also re-presented the plaint. Finally, the Court below had returned the plaint on 19.11.2024 stating to produce the papers in O.S.No.811 of 2005 and to produce citations as mentioned by the petitioner, while representing the plaint. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, he seeks interference of this Court with the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

4.Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 5 to 9. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondents 1 to 4 and 10, notice to the respondents 1 to 4 and 10 is dispensed with.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 5 to 9. Records perused. 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.Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.SR.No.459 of 2024 for declaration along with other reliefs. However, the plaint was returned by the trial Court on various occasions and finally, the Court below had returned the plaint on 19.11.2024 stating to produce the papers in O.S.No.811 of 2005 and to produce citations as mentioned by the petitioner, while representing the plaint on 28.10.2024 and the same is under challenge herein.

8.On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the defects pointed out by the trial Court are required to be rectified by the petitioner. It is well settled that when a plaint is returned pointing out certain defects, it is for the party concerned to comply with the returns and re-present the plaint after curing the defects in the manner required by the Court. The responsibility to rectify the defects and re-present the plaint always lies upon the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate course would be t