Dismissed¶¶25

M.Rengasamy v. Subramanian

Madras HC2 Jul 2025REV.APLW(MD)/47/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Rev.Application Writ (MD)No.47 of 2025; Justice G.R.Swaminathan; decided 02.07.2025; review of order dated 05.04.2024 in WP(MD)No.6453 of 2024; refusal check slip; Joint Sub Registrar-I, Palayamkottai; registration of document; token 27.06.2023; presentation 28.06.2023; undertaking not to alienate property dated 03.07.2023 by S.Ulaganathan; O.S No.101 of 2023, III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli; error apparent on face of record; Order 47 Rule 114 CPC; review dismissed, no costs; connected WMP(MD)Nos.7188 & 7189 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Since the undertaking given by S.Ulaganathan on 03.07.2023 was subsequent to the presentation of the document for registration on 28.06.2023, it cannot be put against the writ petitioner. ¶¶24

M.Rengasamy Vs Subramanian — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Rev.Application Writ (MD)No.47 of 2025 and WMP(MD)Nos.7188 & 7189 of 2025

¶7

M.Rengasamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Subramanian, S/o.Petchimuthu

¶10

2.The Inspector General of Registration, Mandhaveli, Chennai – 600 028.

¶11

3.The Join Sub Registrar – I, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 114 of CPC to review the order dated 05.04.2024 in WP(MD)No.6453 of 2024 on the file of this Court.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana, Senior Advocate for Ms.V.Janakidevi for R1 Mr.G.Suriya Ananth Government Advocate for R2 and R3

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

Heard both sides.

ORDER

2.The review applicant herein seeks review of the order dated 05.04.2024 made in WP(MD)No.6453 of 2024. The first respondent herein, Subramanian, filed the said writ petition questioning the refusal check slip issued by the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Palayamkottai. I had set aside the refusal check slip and allowed the writ petition on 05.04.2024.

¶20

3.The review applicant herein states that the fact that the writ petitioner's vendor had given an undertaking before the civil court in O.S No.101 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli not to alienate the property was not brought to my notice. I wanted to know the sequence of events. It is not in dispute that the undertaking was given only on 03.07.2023 by one S.Ulaganathan, the vendor of the writ petitioner Subramanian. It is also not in dispute that even on 27.06.2023, token was obtained from the registering authority and on 28.06.2023, the document was presented for registration. Since the undertaking was given subsequently to the presentation of the document, I am of the view that the same

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

cannot be put against the writ petitioner. The order passed by me on 05.04.2024 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.

¶25

3.This review application stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

02.07.2025

¶27