Dismissed¶20

Vanaja v. Manimegalai

Madras HC8 Jan 2026CRP/2552/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar J., 08-01-2026), CRP No. 2552 of 2025 and CMP.No.14527 of 2025 - Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; impleadment of property purchaser as respondent in domestic violence case (DVC No.2 of 2025); necessary party; Magistrate issued process only against respondents 2 to 4 for want of domestic relationship with complainant; alternative remedy - challenge the Magistrate's order or apply before the Magistrate; supervisory power cannot be used to seek impleadment direction; revision dismissed with liberty, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process only against respondents 2 to 4, or to approach the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate relief; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.14527 of 2025) closed.

Vanaja Vs Manimegalai — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to be a necessary party having purchased property from the third respondent before the complaint, is entitled to a direction from the High Court (invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227) to implead her as a respondent in DVC No.2 of 2025 pending before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

A party aggrieved by the Magistrate's order issuing process only against respondents 2 to 4 must challenge that order in accordance with law or file an application before the learned Magistrate; she is not entitled to come before this Court by invoking supervisory power merely to seek a direction to implead herself.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner either to challenge the Magistrate's order issuing process only against respondents 2 to 4 or to approach the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate relief.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a purchaser of property from the third respondent, seeking a direction to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet to implead her as a respondent in DVC No.2 of 2025, a domestic violence case filed by the first respondent against the other respondents. The Magistrate, after perusing the complaint, had issued process only against respondents 2 to 4 on the ground that the petitioner had no domestic relationship with the complainant. Held: a party aggrieved by such an order must challenge it in accordance with law or file an application before the learned Magistrate; the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to seek a direction to implead. Petition dismissed with liberty as aforesaid; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRP No. 2552 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 2552 of 2025 and CMP.No.14527 of 2025

¶7

Vanaja Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Manimegalai

¶10

2.Srikanth

¶11

3.Usha

¶12

4.Jaiganesh Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to direct the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet to Implead the petitioner as one of the respondent in the above DVC No.2 of 2025.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sunil Kumar.R

¶15

For Respondent(s): R1 - Left R2 - No Such Person R3 and R4- Served-No appearance

¶16

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

¶17

CRP No. 2552 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet to implead her as one of the party respondent in the domestic violence case filed by the first respondent against the other respondents.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even before filing of the complaint by the first respondent, the petitioner purchased property from third respondent. Therefore, she is a necessary party to the proceedings. It is seen from the typed set of papers that after perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate issued process only against respondents 2 to 4 on the ground that the petitioner had no domestic relationship with the first respondent/ complainant. 3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, she has to challenge the same in accordance with the law or file an application before the learned Magistrate. She is not entitled to come before this Court by invoking supervisory power seeking direction. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by Magistrate issuing process only against respondents 2 to 4 or to approach the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate relief. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous

¶21

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

CRP No. 2552 of 2025

petition is closed.

08-01-2026

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No nr

¶26

¶27