The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative; maintainability should be judicially assessed, not relegated to the Registry.

Order

(1) This petition is filed against the docket order daetd 09.03.2026, passed in unnumbered EA.SR.No.1615/2026 in EP.No.7/2025 in RCOP.No.5/2014, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, for a direction to number the application as expeditiously as possible.

(2) The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed suits in OS.Nos.42/2007 and 17/2007, before the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Erode, for declaration of title, possession and for permanent injunction in respect of Door No.264, Kamarajar Street, Brough Road, Erode. The suits were decreed on 12.06.2018 and the same was confirmed in AS.Nos.154 and 155/2018 on 26.08.2019. The Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein,was also dismissed on 14.09.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner filed SLP.Nos.18150 and 18151/2021. In the said Special Leave Petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 20.10.2022, ordered status quo existing as on date. The petitioner further states that the respondents 1 to 3 obtained eviction order against the 4^th respondent on 16.10.2015 in RCOP.No.5/2014 and pursuant thereto, the respondents 1 to 3 filed REP.No.7/2025, wherein delivery was ordered on 11.03.2026. The petitioner states that on coming to know of the order in REP.No.7/2025, he filed two applications before the Execution Court for reopening the case and for recording obstruction in EP, till the disposal of SLP.Nos.18150 and 18151/2023. The Court concerned returned the applications and therefore aggrieved by such return, the petitioner has filed the above CRP with the aforesaid prayer.

(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in2019 [9] SCC 154 [ P. Surendran Vs. State by Inspector of Police ] and the judgment of this Court reported in2021 [3] LW 677 [Selvaraj and Others. vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited], submitted that the act of numbering a petition was purely administrative one. The learned counsel submitted that the maintainability of the petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, was a matter to be decided on the judicial side by applying the judicial mind of the Court and therefore, the procedure adopted by the Court below is erroneous and unsustainable and deserved to be set aside.

(4) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

(5) Since the respondents would not be adversely affected by the order to be passed herein, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without notice to the respondents.

(6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of P. Surendran Vs. State by Inspector of Police reported in2019 [9] SCC 154 , held in paragraphs No.10 and 11 as follows:-

‘’10.The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act itself indicate at application of judicial mind. In this context, we accept the statement of the Attorney General, that the determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering.

11.Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the petition by the Madras