SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
C. Manokaran – Appellant
Versus
S. Easwaran – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition O.S.SR.No.889 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Venkatesh.U

A party seeking to challenge a trial court's order refusing to number a plaint must first represent the plaint after addressing the court's returns before invoking high court revision jurisdiction.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against a docket order of the trial court which refused to number a plaint due to valuation concerns. The court noted that the petitioner filed the revision without first representing the plaint to the trial court to address the specific returns or objections raised. The main issue is whether a revision petition is premature when the plaintiff chooses to approach the High Court instead of complying with judicial returns. The Court determined that the proper procedure is for the petitioner to represent the plaint and argue the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction before the trial court initially. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with directions to the trial court to hear the petitioner on the maintainability of the suit regarding pecuniary jurisdiction following re-presentation of the plaint.

Table of Content
1. failure to represent the plaint renders a challenge to its return premature. (Para 2 , 3)
2. court directs the petitioner to represent the matter to the trial court to determine pecuniary jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff, aggrieved by the learned Principal District Judge refusing to number the plaint on the ground that the suit valuation is less than Rs.1 lakh. The learned counsel counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the prayers sought for in the suit and stated that the Court of competent jurisdiction is only the Principal District Judge.

3. However, I find that though the plaint has been returned on 28.04.2026, without even representing the same, complying with the returns, the plaintiff has rushed to this Court by way of this revision.

4. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The Registry shall return the original plaint to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today to enable the petitioner/plaintiff to represent the plaint before the learned Principal District Judge, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

ii) The learned Principal District Judge shall hear the learned counsel for the petitioner in open Court on the maintainability with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court and thereafter pass orders on maintainability within a period of four weeks thereafter.

5. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top