The Registry of a court performs a ministerial function and cannot reject a petition on the grounds of maintainability; such decisions must be made by the Court through a judicial order.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the online rejection order dated 13.12.2025 made in unnumbered R.E.A.No.__ of 2025 in E.P.No.73/2024 filed under Section 148 and 151 of C.P.C., to condone the delay in re-presentation on the file of the Commercial Court in District Judge Level, Salem and direct the trial Court to number the interlocutory application and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Munusamy

ORDER

This petition is filed against the online rejection order dated 13.12.2025 made in unnumbered R.E.A.No.__ of 2025 in E.P.No.73/2024 filed under Sections 148 and 151 C.P.C., to condone the delay in re-presentation, on the file of the Commercial Court in District Judge Level, Salem, and direct the trial Court to number the interlocutory application and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner states that the respondent obtained ex parte arbitration award and filed execution petition in E.P.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Commercial Court, District Judge Level, Salem. While so, the petitioner has filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 106(3) CPC to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the set aside application. The said application was rejected by the impugned online rejection order dated 13.12.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above civil revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the District Court for rejecting the petition even without numbering the same, is against the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Surendran Vs. State reported in (2019) 9 SCC 154. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the revision petition be allowed.

4. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

5. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment in the case of P.Surendran (cited supra), has emphatically declared that the Registry cannot decide the maintainability of a petition by a ministerial function. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the issue of maintainability of a petition is in the realm of the Court and therefore, it was the duty of the Court to decide the maintainability of a petition by a judicial order. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedure adopted by the District Court is palpably against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment.

6. In light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is inclined to set aside the rejection order dated 13.12.2025, with the following directions:-

(a)The petitioner shall re-present the unnumbered R.E.A.No.__ of 2025 in E.P.No.73/2024 on the file of the Commercial Court in District Judge Level, Salem, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b)Upon representation of the petition, the Registry of the Court below shall number the unnumbered R.E.A.No.__ of 2025 in E.P.No.73/2024 and list it before the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Salem, for maintainability.

(c)The learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Salem, after giving notice to the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent, afford an opportunity of hearing to both counsels and shall thereafter pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of representation of the petition.

(d)It is made clear