Madras High Court

Sivakumar vs Rajesh on 6 October, 2025

                                                                                                    CRP.No.4680 of 2025


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                     DATED: 06.10.2025
                                                             CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
                                                    CRP.No.4680 of 2025

                    Sivakumar                                              ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Plaintiff

                                                               Versus
                    1. Rajesh
                                                    ... Respondents / 1st Respondent / 7th Defendant
                    2. Suresh
                                                   ... Respondents / 2nd Respondent / 8th Defendant
                    3. Sudarshan
                                                    ... Respondents / 3rd Respondent / 9th Defendant
                    4. Selvamarimuthu
                                                     ... Respondents / 4th Respondent / 1st Defendant
                    5. Ramuthai
                                                    ... Respondents / 5th Respondent / 6th Defendant
                    6. Palaniappan
                                                   ... Respondents / 6th Respondent / 2nd Defendant
                    7. Bhagavthy
                                                    ... Respondents / 7th Respondent / 4th Defendant
                    8. Priya
                                                     ... Respondents / 8th Respondent / 5th Defendant
                    9. The District Collector,
                        District Collector's office, Tiruppur.
                                                   ... Respondents / 9th Respondent / 10th Defendant


                    1/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 03:16:06 pm )
                                                                                         CRP.No.4680 of 2025


                    10. The District Revenue Officer,
                          District Revenue Office, Tiruppur.
                                                 ... Respondents / 10th Respondent / 11th Defendant
                    11. The Revenue Commissioner,
                          Revenue Commissioner's Office,
                          Udumalpet.
                                                 ... Respondents / 11th Respondent / 12th Defendant
                    12. Panchayat Chairman,
                          Devanurputhur, Udumalpet.
                                                 ... Respondents / 12th Respondent / 13th Defendant
                    13. The Tahsildar,
                            Tahsildar's Office, Udumalpet.
                                                ... Respondents / 13th Respondent / 14th Defendant
                    14. The Village Administrative Officer,
                           Village Administrative Office,
                           Devanurputhur, Udumalpet.
                                                 ... Respondents / 14th Respondent / 15th Defendant


                    Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                    India, to direct the learned District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, to dispose of
                    I.A.No.362 of 2024 in O.S.No.72 of 2024 within a stipulated time frame as
                    that may be fixed by this Court.


                    For Petitioner               :        Mr.N.Umapathi
                    For R12                      :        Mr.J.Daniel,
                                                          Government Advocate
                    For R9 to 11, 13 & 14       :         Mr.D.Gopal,
                                                          Government Advocate


                    2/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 03:16:06 pm )
                                                                                            CRP.No.4680 of 2025


                                                               ORDER

Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of I.A.No.362 of 2024 in

O.S.No.72 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court,

Udumalpet, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would

submit that the revision petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2024

before the learned District Munsif Court, Udumalpet seeking a declaration

and consequential relief in respect of the suit property. The defendants filed

their written statements, and the respondents / defendants, with an ulterior

motive of protracting the litigation, have been filing unnecessary petitions and

seeking repeated adjournments without justifiable reasons. Although the

Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.362 of 2024 in O.S.No.72of 2024 was

filed in 2024, more than a year has been lapsed. The revision petitioner /

plaintiff, who is 57 years old, is unable to enjoy the fruits of litigation due to

the delaying tactics adopted by the respondents. Therefore, he submits that

the speedy disposal of the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.362 of 2024 in

O.S.No.72of 2024 is just and necessary.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 03:16:06 pm )

3. It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such

directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable

reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of

this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine

Mad 674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:

“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system. No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority.

12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 03:16:06 pm )

Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”

4. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra

reported in 2024 INSC 899, wherein, it has been held as follows:

“In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time- bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;” (underline supplied)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 03:16:06 pm )

A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench.”

5. By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a

time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending

therein is not warranted. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own

procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure

that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.

6. Considering the nature of the suit and age of the revision

petitioner / plaintiff, the learned District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, shall

dispose of the Interlocutory application in I.A.No.362 of 2024 in O.S.No.72of

2024 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

With the above observations, this civil revision petition stands disposed

of. No costs.