logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7231 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRP No. 6009 of 2026 & CMP.No. 26067 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
Parties : Sakthikumar Versus A.S. Selvaraj
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R.D. Ashok Kumar for M/s. N. Lavanya, Advocates. For the Respondent: -----\r\n
Date of Judgment : 25-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Section 47

2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenges a docket return order dated 01‑11‑2025 that returned the petitioner’s Section 47 application as non‑maintainable. The Court observed that the petitioner filed the revision without complying with the return. Relying on precedents set in *Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.* (2013‑4‑L.W.225) and *K. Selvaraj v. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Ltd.* (2021 4 CTC 539), the Court found merit in setting aside the return order. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, directing the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, to hear the maintainability issue, number the application if appropriate, and dispose of it within two weeks, without costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Return order, dated 01.11.2025 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Unnumbered EA.No. of 2026 in EP.No.19 of 2015 and consequently direct the learned Judge to take the interim application on file and number the same.)

The present revision is directed against the docket return order dated 01.11.2025 in an Unnumbered E.A.No.____ of 2026 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, returning the Section 47 application filed by the petitioner.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. On going through the records, I find that the Section 47 application filed by the petitioner has been returned, questioning the maintainability of the application. Without even representing the said return or complying with the returns, the present revision has been filed.

4. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Next to Dr.Zakir Hussain College, New Delhi – 110 002 Vs. Bharti Airtel Limited, represented by its Legal Manager, Mr.Harish Rangarajan, reported in 2013-4-L.W.225, as well as the recent decision of this Court in K.Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited represented through its Project Director, reported in (2021) 4 CTC 539, I am inclined to set aside the docket return order dated 01.11.2025.

5. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the docket return order dated 01.11.2025 in an Unnumbered E.A.No.____ of 2026 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, is set aside. The IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, is directed to post the matter in open Court and hear the counsel for the petitioner on maintainability and thereafter, pass orders in the application, including the maintainability of the application, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of this order copy and if the counsel for the petitioner makes out a case for maintainability of the application, then the Court shall ensure that the application is numbered and disposed of, after affording an opportunity to the respondent decree holder. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal