Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

John Thomas Vs Arokyasamy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
John Thomas Vs ArokyasamyJohn Thomas v. Arokyasamy

Dismissed¶30

John Thomas v. Arokyasamy

Civil Procedure Code – Review – S.114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 – Leave to a third party under S.115 to file review

Madras HC2 Mar 2026WMP(MD)/14635/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (G.R. Swaminathan & R. Poornima, JJ.), order dated 02.03.2026 in W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020 in Rev.Apl.W.(MD)No.SR43801 of 2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 — John Thomas v. Arokyasamy & Others. Third-party leave petition under Section 115 CPC to file review (Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC) of the order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 (encroachment removal; survey by RDO Srirangam and BDO Vaiyampatti Union, Trichy District). Court held the writ order decided nothing on merits and left the defence open, so leave was unnecessary; miscellaneous petition dismissed with no costs and the review application dismissed at the SR stage. Keywords: leave to file review, third party, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, Section 115 CPC, encroachment, dismissed at SR stage, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; miscellaneous petition dismissed with no costs and Rev.Apl.W.(MD)SR.No.43081 of 2020 dismissed at the SR stage itself.

Why is it important?

The order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench did not go into the merits of the matter at all; if the petitioner herein has any defence, it was left open. ¶30

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; miscellaneous petition dismissed with no costs and Rev.Apl.W.(MD)SR.No.43081 of 2020 dismissed at the SR stage itself.

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to the petitioner (a third party to W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020) under Section 115 CPC to file a review application against the order dated 20.08.2020 in that writ petition.

Court's answer

The order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench did not go into the merits of the matter at all; if the petitioner herein has any defence, it was left open.

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order left the petitioner's defence open, the question of granting leave to file the review application does not arise; the miscellaneous petition is dismissed with no costs and Rev.Apl.W.(MD)SR.No.43081 of 2020 is dismissed at the SR stage itself.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure Code — Review — S.114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 — Leave to a third party under S.115 to file review — Review petitioner (John Thomas) sought leave to challenge the order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020, by which the Division Bench, without going into merits, disposed of Arokyasamy's writ petition for removal of encroachment by directing the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Block Development Officer, Vaiyampatti Union, to follow due process of law by way of survey and removal of encroachments if noted, adhering to natural justice, within ten days. Held: since the writ order did not go into merits and expressly left the petitioner's defence open, the question of granting leave to file review does not arise. Miscellaneous petition dismissed with no costs; Rev.Apl.W.(MD)SR.No.43081 of 2020 dismissed at the SR stage itself.

A

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020

in Rev.Apl.W.(MD)No.SR43801 of 2020 in

W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020

John Thomas ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Arokyasamy

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam, Trichy District.

3.The Tahsildar, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents

Prayer in W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020 : Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to grant leave to the petitioner to file a review application as against the order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 on the file of this Court.

1/6

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

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020

Prayer in Rev.Apl.W.(MD)No.SR43081 of 2020 : Review Application is filed under Section 114 r/w. Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, to allow the review application and set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 dated 20.08.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkuar

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate for R2 & R3.

O R D E R (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

One Arokyasamy filed W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 for directing the

authorities to remove the encroachment in question in the petition mentioned survey number. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2020 in the following terms:-

“6.This Court, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the second respondent as well as the Block Development Officer, Vaiyampatti Union, Trichy District, to follow the due process of law in the form of survey and if any encroachments are noted, remove the same, subjected to

2/6

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

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020

legal interdict if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice and inform the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as the persons concerned including the encroachers. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.”

Seeking review of the said order, the review application has been filed. Since the petitioner is a third party, seeking leave to file the review application, the present miscellaneous petition is filed.

2.The order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench has not gone into the merits of the matter at all. If the petitioner herein has any defence, it was left open. In these circumstances, the question of granting leave does not arise at all. This miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Rev.Apl.W.(MD)SR.No.43081 of 2020 is also dismissed at the SR stage itself.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 02.03.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

3/6

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

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020

To:

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam, Trichy District.

2.The Tahsildar, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District.

4/6

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

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020

5/6

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

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.

ias

W.M.P.(MD)No.14635 of 2020 in Rev.Apl.W.(MD)No.SR43801 of 2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020

02.03.2026

6/6

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether leave should be granted to the petitioner (a third party to W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020) under Section 115 CPC to file a review application against the order dated 20.08.2020 in that writ petition.¶14
The court held
The order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench did not go into the merits of the matter at all; if the petitioner herein has any defence, it was left open.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Civil Procedure CodeSection 115¶14 Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 disposing of Arokyasamy's writ petition with directions to the second respondent and the Block Development Officer, Vaiyampatti Union, to follow due process of law (survey and removal of encroachments if noted) within ten days; the order sought to be reviewed.¶23
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Division Bench) · 20.08.2020
Prior proceeding
One Arokyasamy filed W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 for directing the authorities to remove the encroachment in question in the petition mentioned survey number.¶22-23
Prior proceeding
Writ petition disposed of on 20.08.2020 without going into merits; second respondent and BDO, Vaiyampatti Union directed to follow due process of law in the form of survey, remove encroachments if noted, subject to legal interdict, adhering to natural justice, and complete the exercise within ten days.¶24
Prior proceeding
Review application filed seeking review of the order dated 20.08.2020; the review petitioner being a third party to the writ petition, the present miscellaneous petition was filed seeking leave to maintain the review.¶29

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
John Thomas¶9
T.Pon Ramkuar
respondent
Arokyasamy¶11
respondent
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam, Trichy District¶12
T.Amjadkhan
respondent
The Tahsildar, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District¶13
T.Amjadkhan

Coram

AI extract

G.R.SWAMINATHANauthor¶21
R.POORNIMAmember¶44

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 2 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 1 Dec 2020
Case no.: WMP(MD)/14635/2020
CNR: HCMD010661022020
Bench: G.r.swaminathan R. Poornima
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.M.P.(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan R. Poornima

Antony Sunil Babu Vs Saravanakumar The Inspector of Police
23 Feb 2026
The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), Vs Selvamani
23 Feb 2026
The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), Vs P.Muthukani
23 Feb 2026
A.R. Ajai, Vs The Union of India
2 Mar 2026
Prithiviraj Vs the Commissioner
2 Mar 2026
Pichai Pillai, S/O.Muthusamy Vs District Revenue Officer
2 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

John Thomas v. Arokyasamy, WMP(MD)/14635/2020 (MAD), decided on 2 March 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Civil Procedure CodeSection 115 · Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 disposing of Arokyasamy's writ petition with directions to the second respondent and the Block Development Officer, Vaiyampatti Union, to follow due process of law (survey and removal of encroachments if noted) within ten days; the order sought to be reviewed.Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Division Bench) · 20.08.2020
One Arokyasamy filed W.P.(MD)No.9612 of 2020 for directing the authorities to remove the encroachment in question in the petition mentioned survey number.
Writ petition disposed of on 20.08.2020 without going into merits; second respondent and BDO, Vaiyampatti Union directed to follow due process of law in the form of survey, remove encroachments if noted, subject to legal interdict, adhering to natural justice, and complete the exercise within ten days.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.SWAMINATHAN and R.POORNIMA

Parties & counsel