Kumar v. R. Periyasamy

Madras HC19 Aug 2025REV.APLW(MD)/46/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; REV.APLC W(MD)No.46 of 2025; decided 19.08.2025; G.R.Swaminathan J.; review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC of order dated 26.07.2024 in WP(MD)No.17206 of 2024; petitioners/review applicants Kumar and Jeyanthi; first respondent R.Periyasamy; Karur District, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Thogaimalai; keywords: review, land survey, patta, stones installed, fencing restraint, civil proceedings pending, no costs, miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Review application disposed of with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no fencing permitted without suitable orders from the civil court and the rights of the parties left to be governed by the outcome of the civil proceedings. ¶¶30

Kumar Vs R. Periyasamy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

REV.APLC W(MD)No.46 of 2025

¶7

1.Kumar

¶8

2.Jeyanthi ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.R.Periyasamy

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram Taluk Office, Karur District.

¶12

3.The Head Surveyor, Krishnarayapuram Taluk Office, Karur District.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Thogaimalai Police Station, Thogaimalai, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 26.07.2024 in WP(MD)No.17206 of 2024.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.S.Vashik Ali

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.K.Arunraj for R1

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

Mr.C.Venkateshkumar, Special Government Pleader for R2 to R3

¶21

Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R4

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

2.This review application has been filed to review the order dated 26.07.2024 made in WP(MD)No.17206 of 2024. The writ petition was filed by one R.Periyasamy, the first respondent herein. The prayer in the writ petition was for conducting survey of the petition mentioned land. The writ petition was disposed of by issuing the usual set of directions. The review applicant was shown as the fourth respondent. The counsel for the review applicant submits that the writ petitioner did not disclose about the filing of an earlier writ petition by him and the fact that the petition mentioned property is the subject matter of a civil proceeding.

¶25

3.This contention of the learned counsel for the review applicant no doubt appears to be sound. But I would not fault

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

the counsel for the writ petitioner. This is because he had fairly arrayed the review applicant as one of the party respondents. Be that as it may, the patta in question stands in favour of the writ petitioner. Survey has also been conducted based on the direction given by this Court. Therefore, at this point of time, I do not find any ground to review the order passed by me. But then, the rights of the review applicant will be suitably protected. Pursuant to the survey, stones have been installed. I make it clear that no fencing will be put up unless the writ petitioner obtains suitable orders from the civil court. The rights of the parties will be governed by the outcome of the civil proceedings.

¶30

4.This review application is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

19.08.2025

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No SKM

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

¶36