Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Lakshminarayanan, J
M.Yokeshwaran – Appellant
Versus
Thedaselvi – Respondent
C.R.P.(MD)No.3779 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Suresh
A statutory right of appeal exists under Order XLIII Rule 1(j) barring revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:The judgment analyses the Civ. Proc. Code, specifically Order XXI Rule 90 and its interplay with rights of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(j). The petitioner contended the revisability of an auction order. The court determined alternate remedies preclude its interference, citing precedents. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impugned order under cpc analyzed. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's reliance on prior judgment. (Para 2) |
| 3. maintaining interference principles. (Para 3) |
| 4. calculating time for appeal. (Para 4) |
| 5. civil revision petition dismissed. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
The order impugned in this revision is one passed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against such an order, the Civil Revision Petitioner/auction purchaser has a right of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(j). Under Section 115(1) of the Code, when there is a statutory right of appeal, this Court should not interfere with the same in revision. Even a revision under Article 227 cannot be entertained, when an alternate remedy is available. (See, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors vs Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors, (2019) 9 SCC
538).
2. Mr.Suresh relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Manimaran vs Selvaraj (C.R.P.No.3546 of 2022, dated
07.11.2025)
3. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned Judge had not gone into the issue of maintainability at all nor is there any reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai's case cited supra.
4. Hence, I am of the view that the revision cannot be entertained, at this stage, at the instance of the auction purchaser. It is open to him to prefer an appeal, if he so advised. The period from 17.12.2025 till the date of uploading of this order onto the website of this Court, will stand excluded for the purpose of calculating the time to prefer an appeal.
5. In view of the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
