Rajevel Vs Suhandhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Rajevel Vs Suhandhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition allowed with a direction to the First Appellate Court to permit the petitioner/appellant to re-present the papers; if the Appellate Court is not satisfied with the compliance, to post the appeal for hearing/maintainability and pass further orders after affording an opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the appellant's compliance dated 14.02.2025 explaining the difference in the value of the counter claim between the appeal and the decree copy and setting out grounds of challenge to the trial Court's findings, the First Appellate Court ought to have posted the matter before the open Court for maintainability or clarification instead of once again returning the appeal papers directing amendment of the clerical error in the decree copy.

Court's answer

Since the appellant had clarified in the compliance dated 14.02.2025 why there is a difference in the value of the counter claim between the appeal and the decree copy and had pointed out the grounds of challenge against the findings of the trial Court, the First Appellate Court ought to have posted the matter before the open Court for maintainability or clarification instead of returning the appeal papers once again without addressing the compliance made on 14.02.2025.

Ratio / Principle

The First Appellate Court is directed to permit the petitioner/appellant to re-present the papers, and if the Appellate Court is not satisfied with the compliance, it shall post the appeal for hearing/maintainability and, after affording an opportunity to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, pass further orders.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (P.B. Balaji, J.) - C.R.P.No.2946 of 2025, decided 16.07.2025. Rajevel (petitioner, by V.Gunasekar) v. Suhandhi, Sivasankari, Sivaranjani, Arulmozhi and Kanimozhi (respondents). Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking setting aside of the return order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Principal District Sessions Court, Kallakurichi in A.S.Un-numbered of 2024 in A.S.SR.No.1071 of 2024, and a direction to the First Appellate Court to number the appeal. The First Appellate Court had again returned the appeal papers directing amendment of a 'clerical error' in the decree copy, the value of the counter claim differing between the appeal and the decree; the appellant had, in compliance dated 14.02.2025, clarified the reason for the difference and pointed out the grounds of challenge against the trial Court's findings. Held: the First Appellate Court ought to have posted the matter before the open Court for maintainability or clarification instead of again returning the appeal papers without addressing that compliance. Revision allowed with a direction to permit re-presentation of the papers; if the compliance is unsatisfactory, the appeal shall be posted for hearing/maintainability and further orders passed after affording opportunity to counsel; no order as to costs.

CRP.No.2946 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

C.R.P.No.2946 of 2025

Rajevel ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Suhandhi 2.Sivasankari 3.Sivaranjani 4.Arulmozhi

5.Kanimozhi ... Respondents

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the return order passed by the Principal District Sessions Court, Kallakurichi, in A.S.Un-numbered of 2024 in A.S.SR.No.1071 of 2024 dated 27.02.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gunasekar

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed for a limited relief of seeking a

direction to the First Appellate Court to number the appeal.

1/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.2946 of 2025

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Despite the revision petitioner clarifying as to why there is a difference in the judgment as well as the decree, without adverting to the same, the appeal has been once again returned directing the petitioner herein/appellant to amend the clerical error in the decree copy. Since the value of the counter claim differs from the appeal and the decree copy, even in the compliance dated 14.02.2025, the petitioner/appellant has clarified as to why there is a difference and has also pointed out the grounds of challenge against the findings of the trial Court. In such view of the matter, the First Appellate Court ought to have posted the matter before the open Court for maintainability or clarification instead of returning the appeal papers once again, without addressing the compliance that was made on 14.02.2025.

In the light of the above, I am inclined to allow the revision

petition with a direction to the First Appellate Court to permit the petitioner/appellant to re-present the papers and if the Appellate Court is not satisfied with the compliance, the Appellate Court shall post the appeal for

2/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.2946 of 2025

hearing/maintainability and after affording an opportunity to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, further orders shall be passed.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16.07.2025

Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes/No ssb To The Principal District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi.

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.2946 of 2025

P.B. BALAJI,J.

ssb

CRP.No.2946 of 2025

16.07.2025

4/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis