logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7135 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRP. No. 4108 of 2026 & CMP. Nos. 17977 & 17978 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
Parties : R. Periyasamy (Died) & Others Versus V.R. Arunachalam (Died) & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: N. Manoharan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R. Bharath Kumar, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 24-09-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Revision filed under Section115 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 11 of the Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 against the order dated 19.06.2026 made in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in OP No.311 of 2002 on the file of Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Thiruchirapalli (Came at Erode).)

1. Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/cultivating tenants and Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for the first respondent/landlord.

2. The petitioners’ grievance is that there are two proceedings initiated against the cultivating tenants – one for fixation of fair rent in FRP No.29 of 1994 and another for eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956.

3. Though OP No.311 of 2002 was disposed of by the Special Collector, on revision, this Court in CRP No.393 of 2022 allowed the revision and remitted the matter to the Special Collector for passing fresh orders in OP No.311 of 2002.

4. Admittedly, it is conceded that the said OP No.311 of 2002 is pending and it is at the stage of passing orders. Insofaras fixation of fair rent, after enquiry, by final order dated 11.06.2025, fair rent was fixed and the same was challenged by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Court in time.

5. Final order was passed in OP No.311 of 2002 on 02.07.2025 However, the District Court pointed out an error, viz., incorporating OP No.311 of 2002 instead of FRP No.29 of 2024. Admittedly, the said order pertains to fixation of fair rent. The District Court directed the petitioner to get necessary amendment carried out in the order and represent the same so that the appeal could be taken up on merits. The petitioner made multiple requests to the Special Deputy Collector, however, the very same mistake by mentioning OP No.311 of 2002 was carried out again. In fact, as in the last order dated 19.06.2026, the Special Deputy Collector makes an endorsement that the amendment application is allowed, but, yet, the reference to OP No.311 of 2002 continues to remain in the impugned proceedings and the order does not reflect FRP No.29 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore states that suitable directions may be issued to the Special Deputy Collector to correct the order referring FRP No.29 of 2024 instead of OP No.311 of 2002 to enable the correct copy of the order to be filed before the appellate Court (District Court).

6. Per contra, Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent/landlord would submit that an order was passed in eP/th/F/k/vz;/29/1994 dated 11.06.2025 in Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2023, where the correction has been carried out referring the proceedings to FRP No.29 of 2024 and not OP No.311 of 2002. The copy of the said order has been marked to the revision petitioners as well. In fact, Mr.Bharath Kumar also points out that in the course of exchange of notices as well, prior to filing of execution petition by the respondents/landlords, copy of the proceedings dated 11.06.2025 was sent to the petitioners’ advocate as well. He therefore contends that the petitioners are well aware of the correction being carried out even as early as on 11.06.2025.

7. Be that as it may, admittedly, the copy that was originally issued to the petitioners did not contain FRP No.29 of 2024, but mentioned only OP No.311 of 2002. It was based on the said order that the appeal came to be preferred before the District Court. On pointing out the mistake, the District Court directed the petitioner to have necessary corrections carried out in the impugned order so that the appeal can be effectively disposed of. Exercising due diligence, the petitioners have also gone back to the Special Deputy Collector for necessary changes to be incorporated. However, despite accepting the mistake, the corrected order also inadvertently carried the wrong OP No.311 of 2002 instead of FRP No.29 of 2024.

8. However, today, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Bharath Kumar, even as early as on 11.06.2025, the correct number viz., FRP No.29 of 2024 has been incorporated and copy of the same has also been issued to V.R.Arunachalam and S.Radha (respondents herein), as found in the said order dated 11.06.2025. However, since the appeal has been filed in time and I do not find any wilful or malafide delay on the part of the petitioners and it appears that it is only a communication gap that has resulted in the long delay, the petitioners are at liberty to file a copy of the proceedings dated 11.06.2025 in eP/th/F/k/vz;/29/1994 and on production of the same, the District Court shall number the CMA SR No10341 of 2025 and after hearing the counsel on either side, shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months.

9. The District Court shall not insist on production of the certified copy since it is admitted by the respondents and the counsel for the respondent as well that the order was passed only in FRP No.29 of 1994 and not in OP No.311 of 2002, since insisting on certified copy will only result in further delay.

10. Mr.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel requests for withdrawal of Rs.2,50,000/-

11. Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that he is not aware of the stand of the petitioners before the District Court and hence he states that the respondents can be given liberty to move an application to withdraw the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) that has been deposited in pursuance of the conditional order passed by this Court at the time of granting stay in the revision petition.

12. Since the amount deposited represents roughly only 25% of the total arrears of the fair rent that has been fixed by the Special Deputy Collector, no serious prejudice would be caused by permitting the respondents to withdraw the said amount. Hence, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).

13. Mr.Bharath Kumar also brings to my notice that though this Court in CRP No.393 of 2022 while remitting the matter to the Revenue Court directed it to dispose of OP No.311 of 2002 de novo, within a period of six months way back on 31.07.2023. The grievance of the respondents/landlords is that despite passage of three years, a final order has not been passed. It is also represented that parties have also argued the matter and it is only at the stage of pronouncement of orders.

14. In the light of the above, I am inclined to direct the Revenue Court to pass final orders in OP No.311 of 2002 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal