Allowed¶30

The Inspector General of Registration v. Meena. K

Madras HC16 Apr 2025REV.APLW(MD)/215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application; Section 114 Civil Procedure Code; Order 47 Rule 1 & 2; suppression of material facts; recall of order; guideline value not fixed; falsification of records; Doc.No.16 of 2022; W.P.(MD).No.11816 of 2023; W.P.(MD).No.10799 of 2022; W.P.(MD).No.8391 of 2024; Inspector General of Registration; District Registrar Dindigul; Sub Registrar Nagalnayekkanpatti; admission stage; no counter filed; N. Sathish Kumar J; Madras High Court; 16.04.2025

What did the court decide?

Review allowed; no costs; the order dated 27.09.2024 in W.P.(MD).No.11816 of 2023 is to be recalled; connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP(MD).Nos.22435 & 22436 of 2024) stand closed; Registry directed to post the writ matter for disposal on merits, with the respondents to file their counter by then. ¶30

The Inspector General of Registration Vs Meena. K — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.09.2024 in W.P.(MD).No.11816 of 2023 was obtained by suppression of material facts and is therefore liable to be recalled in review under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 47 Rules 1 & 2.

¶21

Court's answer

Suppression is established: the detailed order dated 21.06.2022 in respect of pending Doc.No.16 of 2022 was suppressed before the Court, and the earlier pending writ petition was also not disclosed while obtaining the order dated 27.09.2024; the Additional Advocate General's contentions were held well founded.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The suppressed detailed order showed that the document was refused registration on the ground of falsification of records, whereas the writ order dated 27.09.2024 had been obtained on the representation that the document was refused registration only because the guideline value had not been fixed.

¶28

Key takeaways

Since the order dated 27.09.2024 was obtained at the admission stage without any counter, by suppressing the entire materials, this Court held that the order must necessarily be recalled.ratio¶29
Operative directions flowing from the recall: the Registry is to post the matter for disposal on merits, and the respondents are to file their counter by then.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review application (Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.215 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Madras, N. Sathish Kumar J., decided 16.04.2025) by the Inspector General of Registration, the District Registrar (Registration), Dindigul and the Sub Registrar, Nagalnayekkanpatti under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 47 Rules 1 & 2, seeking recall of the order dated 27.09.2024 in W.P.(MD).No.11816 of 2023. The Court found the writ order was obtained by suppression: the detailed order dated 21.06.2022 relating to pending Doc.No.16 of 2022, which showed the document was refused registration for falsification of records (not merely for non-fixation of guideline value), was withheld; the earlier W.P.(MD).No.10799 of 2022 (order dated 27.03.2024) was likewise suppressed and the pendency of W.P.(MD).No.8391 of 2024 for the very same relief was not disclosed. The order had been obtained at the admission stage with no counter filed. Holding that suppression was writ large and that an order obtained by suppressing materials must necessarily be recalled, the Court allowed the review, closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, and directed the Registry to post the writ for disposal on merits with the respondents to file their counter.

¶1

Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.215 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.215 of 2024 and WMP(MD).Nos.22435 & 22436 of 2024

¶7

1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration Santhome Highways Road, Chennai

¶8

2.The District Registrar (Registration) Dindigul District, Dindigul

¶9

3.The Sub Registrar Nagalnayekkanpatti Sub Registrar Office Dindigul District

¶10

.. Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

K.Meena .. Respondent

¶13

Application is filed under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 to review the order dated 27.09.2024 made in W.P(MD).No.11816 of 2023.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan, SGP For Respondent : Mr.C.M.Ganesan and Mr.R.Chavan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.215 of 2024

¶19

This review has been filed to review the order of this Court dated

¶20

27.09.2024 in W.P.(MD).No.11816 of 2023.

¶21

This review is sought on the grounds that petitioner has filed a similar W.P.(MD).No.10799 of 2022, the same has been suppressed before filing the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11816 of 2023. Pending the said writ petition, he has also filed another W.P.(MD).No.8391 of 2024 for the very same relief. When the matter has been posted on 27.09.2024, the petitioner has not placed neither the copy of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.10799 of 2022 dated 27.03.2024 nor brought to the notice of this Court about the pendency of the W.P.(MD).No.8391 of 2024. Hence, according to the learned Additional Advocate General while obtaining the order dated 27.09.2024, the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 alone has been placed. According to them, the order has been manipulated, in fact, detailed order dated 21.06.2022 has been conveniently omitted to be placed before this Court.

¶22

Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there

¶23

is no suppression of materials, only the document has been refused to be registered on the ground that guideline value has not been fixed.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.215 of 2024

¶28

On perusal of the entire materials, the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General is well founded, in fact, a detailed order dated 21.06.2022 in respect of pending Doc.No.16 of 2022 has been suppressed before the Court. The detailed order indicate that document has not been registered on the ground that there is falsification of records, however, the order has been obtained by this Court stating that the document has been refused to be registered only on the ground that the guideline value has not been fixed. Further, earlier pending writ petition was also not disclosed while obtaining the order dated 27.09.2024.

¶29

Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that suppression is at writ large and the order of this Court has been obtained in the admission stage itself, wherein, no counter has been filed. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that when the order has been obtained by suppressing the entire materials, the order of this Court has to be necessarily recalled.

¶30

In view of the above, the review is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶31

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.215 of 2024

¶35

Registry is directed to post the matter for disposal on merits. Counter be filed by the respondents by then.

¶36

16.04.2025

¶37

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No dhk To

¶38

1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration Santhome Highways Road, Chennai 2.The District Registrar (Registration) Dindigul District, Dindigul 3.The Sub Registrar Nagalnayekkanpatti Sub Registrar Office Dindigul District

¶39

Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.215 of 2024 and WMP(MD).Nos.22435 & 22436 of 2024

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

The Inspector General of Registration v. Meena. K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Inspector General of Registration v. Meena. K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sheela Vs R.Visalatchi

M.Eswaramoorthy Vs S.Jeyabalan

R. Sudhakar Vs v. Ranganathan

The Special Tahsildar Vs Velusamy Gounder

The Special Tahsildar Vs Rajkumar Mandradiyar

A.Vellaisamy, Vs K.S.S. Raju