Allowed

The Commissioner v. L. Kalavathi

Madras HC3 Dec 2025CRP/3250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second defendant challenged dismissal of its Order VII Rule 14(3) petition to receive additional documents, dismissed for non-compliance with a conditional order. Plaintiff consented subject to cost. High Court allowed revision on payment of Rs.7,500/- cost by December 15, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Docket Order dated April 06, 2023 in I.A.No.03 of 2022 set aside, revision allowed on payment of Rs.7,500/- cost to first respondent by December 15, 2025.

The Commissioner Vs L. Kalavathi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C . R . P. ( P D ) N O . 3 2 5 0 O F 2 0 2 3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :03/12/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)NO.3250 OF 2023 AND

¶7

C.M.P.NO.20046 OF 2023

¶8

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai – 3.

¶9

... Petitioner/Petitioner/ 2 nd Defendant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.L.Kalavathi D.No.253, M.T.H. Road, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. ... 1 st Respondent/1 st Respondent/ Plaintiff

¶12

2.The District Collector, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai – 1.

¶13

3.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

¶14

4.M.Logambal, D.No.253, M.T.H. Road, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. ... Respondents 2 to 4/ Respondents 2 to 4/ Defendants 1, 3 & 4

¶15

Page No.1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

C . R . P. ( P D ) N O . 3 2 5 0 O F 2 0 2 3

¶18

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

¶19

Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Docket Order dated April 06, 2023 in I.A.No.03 of 2022 in O.S.No.4621 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.K.Aswini Devi Standing Counsel for Greater Chennai Corporation For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Kesavan For Respondent-2 : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader For Respondent-3 : Mr.S.T.Raja For Respondent-4 : No such person

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The Revision Petitioner herein is the 2^nd Defendant and the 1^st Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the Suit in O.S.No.4621 of 2013 on the file of 'the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court').

¶23

Page No.2 of 7

¶24

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

¶25

C . R . P. ( P D ) N O . 3 2 5 0 O F 2 0 2 3

¶26

2 . In the said Suit, the Plaintiff's side evidence was closed and the

¶27

matter was posted for further evidence of the Defendant's side. At this juncture, the 2 nd Defendant filed a petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the Trial Court to receive additional documents.

¶28

3. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, allowed the said petition on March 04, 2023, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Plaintiff on or before March 13, 2023 and further condition that the Petitioner therein shall examine further witnesses, if any, on the next hearing date itself i.e., March 14, 2023, failing which, the petition will be dismissed.

¶29

4. The Revision Petitioner filed a Memo on March 14, 2023 seeking an extension of time to comply with the Order dated March 04, 2023. The Trial Court extended the time till April 06, 2023 for due compliance. On April 06, 2023, the Revision Petitioner/2^nd Defendant was called absent and the Order has not been complied with; consequently I.A.No.03 of 2022 was dismissed.

¶30

Page No.3 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

C . R . P. ( P D ) N O . 3 2 5 0 O F 2 0 2 3

¶33

5. Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order (Docket Order) dated

¶34

April 06, 2023, the Revision Petitioner/2^nd Defendant therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition praying to set aside the Docket Order dated April 06, 2023 in I.A.No.03 of 2022 in O.S.No.4621 of 2013.

¶35

6 . Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing

¶36

for the Revision Petitioner submits that due to the fact that the Standing Counsel of the Revision Petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court on that date and not paid the cost, the Trial Court passed an impugned Order. Now, the Revision Petitioner is ready to pay the cost. Accordingly,

¶37

he prays to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the Docket Order passed by the Trial Court.

¶38

7 . Mr.S.Kesavan, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶39

1st Respondent/Plaintiff submits that the Suit has been pending since 2013. Considering the age of the Suit, this Civil Revision Petition may be allowed on payment of cost. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the case file.

¶40

Page No.4 of 7

¶41

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

¶42

C . R . P. ( P D ) N O . 3 2 5 0 O F 2 0 2 3

¶43

1stst

¶44

8 . In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the

¶45

1stst Respondent, with a view to adhere the principles of natural justice fully and to decide the matter on its merits, this Court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition subject to payment of cost.

¶46

9 . Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed on condition that the Revision Petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) to the 1 st Respondent on or before December 15, 2025, failing which, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any reference to this Court. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶47

10. List the matter on 16.12.2025 under the cause list caption “for

¶48

Reporting Compliance”.

¶49

03/12/2025

¶50

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No pam Note: Issue Order today (on 04.12.2025)

¶51

Page No.5 of 7

¶52

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

¶53

C . R . P. ( P D ) N O . 3 2 5 0 O F 2 0 2 3

¶54

¶55

1.The VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶56

2.The District Collector, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai – 1.

¶57

3.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

¶58

Page No.6 of 7

¶59

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

¶60

C . R . P. ( P D ) N O . 3 2 5 0 O F 2 0 2 3

¶61

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶62

pam

¶63

C.R.P.(PD)NO.3250 OF 2023

¶64

03/12/2025

¶65

Page No.7 of 7

¶66

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

The Commissioner v. L. Kalavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. L. Kalavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Sarosa Vs J.Mohan

M/S.Thirumurugan Stores Vs Tamil Nadu Co-operative Sugar

Saranya Vs Tamilselvi

Dhandapani Vs K.Sundaram

S.Murali Vs Nilesh Kumar J.Jain

S.K.Selvarajan Vs Selvam