Dismissed¶30

Rajeswari v. Valliammal

Madras HC4 Jun 2026CRP/2239/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transposition of defendants as plaintiffs; Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC; wrong provision of law quoted in interlocutory application does not defeat relief; Article 227 civil revision; Madras High Court; Sub Court Udumalpet; O.S.No.337 of 2018; I.A.No.6 of 2025 allowed; CRP dismissed, no costs; connected CMP closed.

What did the court decide?

None - the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs, leaving the Trial Court's transposition order intact, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P. No.9725 of 2026) was closed. ¶30

Rajeswari Vs Valliammal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 2239 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP No. 2239 of 2026 and C.M.P. No.9725 of 2026

Rajeswari

..Petitioner(s)

Valliammal

¶11

Arun

¶12

Gopalsamy

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER – This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 24-09-2025 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet in IA.No.6 of 2025 in OS.No.337 of 2018.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned

¶19

order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Sub Court at Udumalpet in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.337 of 2018.

¶20

__________ Page1 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

CRP No. 2239 of 2026

¶23

2.The aforesaid application was filed by the plaintiff in the suit, seeking

¶24

to transpose the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as plaintiffs 2 and 3. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the 1^st defendant in the suit has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

¶25

3.The 1^st defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition on the ground that Order XXIII Rule 1A of C.P.C. does not permit the plaintiffs to file an application to transpose the defendants as plaintiffs in the suit. The petitioner has only raised a technical defence, namely quoting wrong provision of law for I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.337 of 2018.

¶26

4.The law is well settled that even if wrong provision of law is quoted, if the relief can be granted, quoting wrong provision of law will not affect the result of the Interlocutory Application. In view of the settled law, the petitioner cannot rely upon the wrong quoting of the provision of law for filing the application by the plaintiff for seeking to transpose the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition.

¶27

__________ Page2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

CRP No. 2239 of 2026

¶30

5.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶31

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

04-06-2026