Dismissed¶34

A.Maruthai Gounder v. Balakrishnan

Madras HC9 Jul 2026WMP(MD)/4867/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, K. Surender J., order dated 09-07-2026 in WMP (MD) No.4867 of 2026 in REV. APLW (MD) SR. No.13431 of 2026; leave to file review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. refused; review applicant (third party) not impleaded in W.P.(MD). No.36551 of 2025; review application rejected at SR stage; liberty to approach competent authority; A. Maruthai Gounder v. Balakrishnan, The Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

What did the court decide?

None; the review applicant was left at liberty to approach the competent authority in the manner known to law. ¶34

A.Maruthai Gounder Vs Balakrishnan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WMP (MD),No.4867 of 2026

¶2

in REV. APLW (MD) SR.No.13431 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 09-07-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WMP (MD) No.4867 of 2026 in

¶7

REV. APLW (MD) SR. No.13431 of 2026

¶8

A. Maruthai Gounder, S/o. Andisamy @ Andi Gounder, Maamarathupatti, Sukkampatti Post, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District – 624 801. … Petitioner / Review Applicant / Third Party

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.Balakrishnan,

¶11

S/o. Mariyappa Gounder, Mamarathupatti, Sukkampatti, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. … 1 st Respondent / Petitioner

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶13

3.Taluk Surveyor, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. … Respondents 2 to 3 / Respondents

¶14

Prayer in WMP (MD) No.4867 of 2026: Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to grant leave to file review challenging the original order passed in the

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

WMP (MD),No.4867 of 2026 in REV. APLW (MD) SR.No.13431 of 2026

¶18

Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No.36551 of 2025 dated 02.01.2026.

¶19

Prayer in REV. APLW (MD) SR. No.13431 of 2026: Review Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.,) and Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., praying to Review the judgment passed in W.P. (MD). No. 36551 of 2022, dated 02.01.2026.

¶20

For Petitioner/Review Applicant : Mr. Muthupandian, for Mr. B. Azhagesh

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Writ Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to grant leave to file review challenging the original order dated 02.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD). No.36551 of 2025.

¶23

2 . Though the review applicant is an affected party, but, he was

¶24

not impleaded as a party in W.P.(MD). No.36551 of 2025.

¶25

3 . A perusal of the order passed in said writ petition reveals

¶26

that notices have to go to the parties concerned. For the said reason, the Review Application does not deserve any consideration. Hence, the Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also liable to be dismissed.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

WMP (MD),No.4867 of 2026 in REV. APLW (MD) SR.No.13431 of 2026

¶30

4 . However, this Court is of the considered view that if the

¶31

review applicant is so advised, he is always at liberty to approach the competent authority in the manner known to law.

¶32

5 . In view of the above, this Writ Miscellaneous Petition stands