A trial court registry cannot conduct a judicial inquiry into the maintainability of a suit at the numbering stage, which is a ministerial duty; issues of maintainability must be adjudicated through the formal process of the Code of Civil Procedure after the suit is numbered.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction to the trial court to number a partition suit that had been returned by the registry due to concerns regarding maintainability. The petitioner relied on statutory provisions and prior judicial precedent to argue against the premature examination of merits during the numbering stage. The Court determined that the registry and the trial court overstepped by evaluating maintainability before the suit was formally numbered. The central issue was whether a trial court can compel a plaintiff to establish the maintainability of a suit prior to its formal numbering. The Court held, following established precedent, that the act of numbering a plaint is a ministerial act, and any inquiry into maintainability must occur after the suit has been processed and defendants have been issued notice. The Court allowed the civil revision petition and directed the trial court to number the suit, leaving all issues of maintainability to be decided by the trial court at an appropriate stage during proceedings.

Table of Content
1. overview of the procedural history and the contention regarding the trial court's refusal to number the plaint. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the role of the court at the time of numbering is ministerial and not judicial. (Para 4)
3. issuance of directive to number the suit and determination of the appropriate stage for deciding maintainability. (Para 5)

ORDER

The civil revision petitioner filed the suit seeking partition and for other reliefs. Even at the stage of numbering, the Registry of the learned Principal Subordinate Court at Hosur have raised certain queries regarding the rights of the plaintiff to entertain the suit. The plaintiff relied upon the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 (Act 1 of 1990) and represented the plaint. Yet again, it has been returned calling upon the plaintiff to produce authorities. The plaintiff had re-presented it by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Selvaraj and others vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited and others in CRP(MD) Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 & 330 of 2020 dated 16.07.2021 rendered by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice N. Seshasayee. The last endorsement made by the Court is that “ Plaintiff Heard. For orders on

10.04.2026".

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that no orders has been passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge on 10.04.2026. Hence, this revision.

3. I have gone through the records.

4. The position of law as to the role of the Court at the time of numbering has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice N. Seshasayee in Sevlaraj case (supra). The learned Judge made it clear that the Civil Court at the time of numbering the plaint, does not perform any judicial act. If the plaint complies with the requirements of the code, it is duty of the Court to take it on file by issuing notice for the defendants. Maintainability or otherwise, would have been gone into only after numbering. To expect the plaintiff to make the submissions of maintainability of the suit, before numbering the plaint and yet again, after the trial is completed, is a procedure unknown to the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Hence, there shall be a direction to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Hosur to number the suit in O.S.SR.2638 of 2026. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the issues of maintainability. It is for the trial Court to decide it at the first hearing of the suit, or later, in terms of the code of Civil Procedure.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is ordered. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASV. Lakshminarayanan, JMunirathna – AppellantVersusSadhamma – RespondentCRP.|O.S. SR. No. 2638 of 2026

A trial court registry cannot conduct a judicial inquiry into the maintainability of a suit at the numbering stage, which is a ministerial duty; issues of maintainability must be adjudicated through the formal process of the Code of Civil Procedure after the suit is numbered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
Munirathna – Appellant
Versus
Sadhamma – Respondent
CRP.|O.S. SR. No. 2638 of 2026