Madras High Court
Revathy vs A/M. Dharmaraja Thirukoil on 17 November, 2025
C.R.P. No.5739 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BALAJI
C.R.P. No.5739 of 2025
and
C.M.P. No.28565 of 2025
Revathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. A/M. Dharmaraja Thirukoil,
Rep by its Executive Officer,
Chennai – 600 004.
2. P. Rajamanickam
Tmt. Rani (Died)
Tr. Mahesh (Died)
3. Tr. Prakash
Respondent 2 and 3 are residing
at No.17A, Dharmaraja Koil Thottam,
Arulmigu Dharmaraja Koil,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the return endorsement dated 09.10.2025 and take on file
in unnumbered E.A. No..... of 2025 filed under Section 47 Rule I of CPC in
E.P. No.165 of 2004 in O.S.No.2395 of 2001 on the file of IX Assistant
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 11:54:50 am )
C.R.P. No.5739 of 2025
City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Ragupathy
ORDER
The present civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the
return endorsement dated 09.10.2025, returning the impleading application
as not maintainable.
2. Heard Mr. V. Ragupathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
gone through the records.
3. The petitioner's case is that he is one of the legal representatives of
the first defendant and in support of the same, legal heirship certificate has
also been annexed with the application for impleading. It is the grievance of
the petitioner that the petitioner has not been impleaded in the proceedings
and is claiming under first judgment debtor. The petitioner sought himself
to be impleaded in the execution proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 11:54:50 am )
4. The Court below has erroneously dismissed the applicable as not
maintainable. In fact, I do not find any reason for returning the application
as not maintainable, when the petitioner asserts to be a legal representative
of the first Judgment Debtor and in support of the same, he has also
produced legal heirship certificate of his mother, where the name of the
father of the Judgment Debtor is reflected as well.
5. In veiw of the above, and also taking note of the directions issued
by this Court in the case of Selvaraj and Others Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear
Power Plant India Ltd. reported in 2021 (4) CTC 539, I am inclined to set
aside the order of return dated 09.10.2025 and accordingly, set aside.
6. Registry shall return the original application filed by the petitioner
by 19.11.2025 through the counsel of the petitioner herein to enable the
petitioner to re-present the papers before the Executing Court. On such re-
presentation, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order, the Executing Court shall number the application and dispose
of the same on merits after hearing the contesting respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 11:54:50 am )
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No
ab
Note: Issue Order Copy on 18.11.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 11:54:50 am )
P. B. BALAJI. J.,
ab
17.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 11:54:50 am )
