Dismissed¶36

Kunjuraman v. Rahumath Ali

Madras HC9 Jul 2026WMP(MD)/8815/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court order dismissing writ miscellaneous petition seeking leave to file review application against W.P.(MD) No.1894 of 2026 (order dated 27.01.2026); Review Application rejected at SR stage; grounds: affected party not impleaded but notices pending to parties concerned; Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 CPC; Section 114 CPC; Article 226 Constitution of India; liberty to approach competent authority; parties: Kunjuraman v. Rahumath Ali (President, North Muslim Jarnaath Sabai) and Ramanathapuram district officials (District Collector, RDO, Thasildar Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Land Surveyor, Inspector of Police Thirupalaikudi); counsel: T. Tharani.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Miscellaneous Petition stood dismissed and the Review Application was rejected at the SR stage itself, with liberty reserved to approach the competent authority.

Kunjuraman Vs Rahumath Ali — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WMP (MD),No.8815 of 2026 in REV. APLW (MD) SR.No.29557 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

WMP (MD) No.8815 of 2026 in REV. APLW (MD) SR. No.29557 of 2026

¶7

Kunjuraman, S/o. Ayyavu, No.6/36, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Thiruppalaikudi, Ramanathapuram District. … Petitioner / Review Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.Rahumath Ali,

¶10

S/o. Mohaideen Pichai, President, North Muslim Jarnaath Sabai, Thirupalaikudi, Ramanathapuram District. … 1 st Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶11

2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

4.The Thasildar,

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶17

WMP (MD),No.8815 of 2026 in REV. APLW (MD) SR.No.29557 of 2026

¶18

5.The Land Surveyor, Office of the Land Surveyor, Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶19

6.The Inspector of Police, Thirupalaikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. … Respondents/ Respondents 1-5

¶20

Prayer in WMP (MD) No.8815 of 2026: Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to grant leave to file a Review Application against the order in W.P.(MD). No.1894 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026 on the file of this Court, pending disposal of the above review application.

¶21

Prayer in REV. APLW (MD) SR. No.29557 of 2026: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.,) read with Section 114 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the order of this Court dated 27.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.(MD) No.1894 of 2026 by reviewing the same and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits.

¶22

For Petitioner/Review Applicant : M/s. T. Tharani

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Writ Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to grant leave to

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

WMP (MD),No.8815 of 2026 in REV. APLW (MD) SR.No.29557 of 2026

¶28

file a Review Application against the order in W.P.(MD). No.1894 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026 on the file of this Court, pending disposal of the above review application.

¶29

2 . Though the review applicant is an affected party, but, he was not impleaded as one of the parties in W.P.(MD). No.1894 of 2026.

¶30

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

¶31

that notices are to be issued 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

dismissed. Consequently, the Review Application in REV. APLW (MD)

¶36

SR. No.29557 of 2026 is also rejected at the SR stage itself.

¶37

3/5