Madras High Court
T. Rathinam vs R. Selvam on 8 April, 2021
C.R.P(MD).No. 1 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P(MD).No.1 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD).No.2 of 2021
T. Rathinam : Petitioner / appellant / Appellant
Vs.
R. Selvam : Respondent / Respondent /
Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the order dated 30.11.2020 passed in
rejecting the unnumbered application filed in A.S.No.89 of 2018 on the file
of the I Additional District Court, Madurai.
For petitioner : S. Anand Chandrasekar
For respondent : Mr. P. Paranthaman
ORDER
This revision is directed against the rejection order passed on
30.11.2020 in an unnumbered application filed in A.S.No. 89 of 2018, on
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(MD).No. 1 of 2021
the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai.
2. The suit in O.S.No.1032 of 2010 has been filed on the
promissory note and after trial, the Court has decreed the suit. Aggrieved
by the said Judgment, the defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.89
of 2018. During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner has
filed an application in un numbered I.A.No... of 2020 under Order XXVI,
Rule 10A CPC., seeking comparison of signature found in the suit
promissory note along with signature found in the mortgage deed and that
the trial Court has passed an order rejecting the said application.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Appellate
Judge, without numbering the case has rejected the application and that he
has no objection to direct the Appellate Court to number the application
and to pass orders after hearing both the parties.
4.When the parties to the lis are before the Court, in an
application filed by any party, generally the Court is expected to hear the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(MD).No. 1 of 2021
other side and for that purpose, the Court has to necessarily take the
petition on file.
5.No doubt, the above rule or principle cannot be applied
universally. In cases, where the petition is being filed abusing the process
of the Court or in the petitions filed seeking administrative orders or
directions for enforcement or implementing any judicial order, there is no
need or necessity to hear the other side and the Court can very well reject
the application at the inception in the first category of cases and the Court
can very well allow the applications without hearing the other side in the
second category of cases. In the case on hand, as already pointed out, the
application was filed under Order XXVI, Rule 10 A C.P.C.
6.Considering the above facts and circumstances, nature of the
petition filed and also the presence of the other side, this Court is of the
view that rejecting the petition without numbering the same is not proper
and is not in accordance with law and as such, the same is liable to be set
aside.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(MD).No. 1 of 2021
7. In the result, the revision is allowed and the learned I
Additional District Judge, Madurai, is directed to restore the un-numbered
application on file, number the same and pass orders after hearing both
sides on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.04.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
trp
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(MD).No. 1 of 2021
To
The I Additional District Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(MD).No. 1 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
trp
C.R.P(MD).No.1 of 2021 and
C.M.P(MD).No.2 of 2021
08.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
