Disposed¶23

Baskar v. Karthigaiselvan

Madras HC17 Feb 2025CRP(MD)/406/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return of plaint; docket order; unnumbered suit O.S.SR.No.27 of 2025; Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur; nine defects/rectifications; re-presentation of plaint; Article 227 Constitution of India; civil revision petition C.R.P(MD)No.406 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice R.Vijayakumar; no interference with trial Court order; disposal with no costs; Registry directed to return original plaint; decision dated 17.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of return of plaint passed by the trial Court. ¶18

Baskar Vs Karthigaiselvan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.406 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.406 of 2025

¶7

1.Baskar 2.Kumaresan ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs Vs. Karthigaiselvan ... Respondent/Defendant

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order of return of plaint, dated 23.01.2025 in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.27 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur and further direct the Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur to number the plaint in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.27 of 2025 by allowing this revision petition.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan

¶10

1/4

¶11

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

¶12

C.R.P(MD)No.406 of 2025

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The plaintiffs in an unnumbered O.S.SR.No.27 of 2025 on the file

¶15

of Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur is the revision petitioner herein.

¶16

The suit was presented on 06.01.2025 and it was returned citing nine reasons for rectification. The plaintiffs have represented the same on

¶17

21.01.2025 stating that they have amended the prayer and necessary Court fees have been affixed. He has further stated that all other corrections have been rectified and represented. However, again on 23.01.2025, the plaint has been returned on the ground that prior directions have not been properly complied with. Aggrieved over the said return, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶18

This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order of return passed by the trial Court. When the trial Court has pointed out nine defects, the plaintiffs have to represent the same after rectifying all the nine defects.

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

C.R.P(MD)No.406 of 2025

¶22