Madras High Court

A. Saravanan vs M.Narayanan @ Narayanasamy on 7 October, 2025

                                                                                               CRP No. 4757 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 07-10-2025

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

                                              CRP No. 4757 of 2025
                                           and C.M.P.No.24043 of 2025

                1. A. Saravanan
                S/o.Late Anguraj Reddy, D.NO.1/147,
                Karthiripatty Village, Achankuttapatti
                Tharappu, Salem Tk, Salem Dist.

                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. M.Narayanan @ Narayanasamy
                S/o.late Malli Nayakkar, D.No.297,
                NGGO Colony, thadampatty Village,
                Salem Dist 14.

                2.N.Nedumaran
                S/o.M.Narayanan @ Narayanasamy,
                D.No.297, NGGO Colony, thadampatty
                Village, Salem Dist 14.

                3.N.Poornima
                D/o.Nedumaran, D.No.297, NGGO
                Colony, thadampatty Village, Salem
                Dist 14.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 01:42:10 pm )
                                                                                   CRP No. 4757 of 2025



                4.Thangavelu Textile Mills Pvt Ltd
                Rep.Managing Director, Office at
                111/1, Thadampatty, Kamaraj Nagar
                Colony, Salem 14.

                5.M. Raju
                S/o.Malli Gounder, D.NO.3/195, Periar
                Avenue, NGGO Colony, Thadampatti
                Village, Salem 14.

                6.Kumar
                S/o.M.Raju, D.No.3/195, Periar
                Avenue, NGGO Colony, Thadampatti
                Village, Salem 14.

                7.M. Andal
                W/o.Moorthy, D.NO.10, Temple
                Avenue, Thindal, Samundi Nagar,
                Erode.

                8.M. Swathi
                D/o.Moorthy, D.NO.10, Temple
                Avenue, Thindal, Samundi Nagar,
                Erode. Late.Saraswathi, W/o.Late
                Natesan.

                9.N. Ravindran
                S/o.late P.Natesan, NO.249/1, Modern
                Theater Back Side, Anna Nagar,
                Kannankurichi Post, Salem 8.

                10.Karikalan
                S/o.Munusamy, NO.165/225,
                Kasthuribai St, Salem Town, Salem 15.

                11.Dinesh Kumar



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis          ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 01:42:10 pm )
                                                                                                  CRP No. 4757 of 2025



                S/o.Vijayaraj, No.113/1, K.S.Complex,
                Kottai Main Road, Cherry Road,
                Shevapet, Salem 7

                12.State Bank of India
                Cherry Road, Salem 7

                13.State Bank of India
                Rep.by its Chief Manager, Having
                Office at. Siruthozhil Branch, Cherry
                Road, Hasthampatty, Salem 7.

                14.The Tahsildar
                Salem East, Salem 1

                15.Te Joint Sub Registrar No.1 (District
                Registrar)
                Salem East, Ramasundaram Mudali St,
                Ammapet, Salem 3.

                                                                                           Respondent(s)

                          Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

                to dispose the OS.No.589/2015 as expeditiously as possible preferably fixed by

                this Honble Court in on the file of Learned III Additional District Munsif at

                Salem, Salem District, by allowing the above CRP.


                                  For Petitioner(s):       Mr.R.Naresh Kumar


                                  For Respondents          Mr.D.Gopal,
                                  14 and 15:               Government Advocate




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 01:42:10 pm )
                                                                                          CRP No. 4757 of 2025




                                                            ORDER

Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in O.S.No.589 of

2015 on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Salem,, the petitioner has

preferred the present civil revision petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the case is of the year 2015 and the same is pending for more than ten years,

which causes great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. He would

further submit that the speedy disposal of O.S.No.589 of 2015 is just and

necessary.

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:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 01:42:10 pm )

“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. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 01:42:10 pm )

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) 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 01:42:10 pm )

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 fact that the suit is of the year 2015, the learned III

Additional District Munsif, Salem shall dispose of the case in O.S.No.589 of

2015 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, this civil revision petition stands disposed

of. No costs.