Madras High Court
Kalaiyarasi vs Krishnasamy on 16 October, 2025
CRP.No.4982 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4982 of 2025
Kalaiyarasi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Krishnasamy
2.Raju @ Raji
3.Rajendran
4.Venkatesan
5.Devendiran
6.Gunasekaran
7.Thavamani ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for direction to dispose the I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.726 of
2023 as expeditiously as possible preferably fixed by this Hon'ble Court on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 03:30:57 pm )
CRP.No.4982 of 2025
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the suit in I.A.No.2 of
2025 in O.S.No.726 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur,
the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that on 14.12.2023, the second respondent along with his family
members sold the property situated in Survey No.229/2 measuring 0.70.00
hectares (equivalent to 1.73 acres), to the revision petitioner vide Document
No.5672/2023. Despite the above transaction, the first respondent has filed a
suit in O.S.No.726/2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur,
against the respondents 2 to 7, seeking a declaration and permanent
injunction, without impleading the revision petitioner as a party to the suit. It
is pertinent to point out that the second respondent who is arrayed as the first
defendant in the said suit, had already sold a portion of the property to the
revision petitioner. However, the first respondent with full knowledge of the
sale, failed to implead the petitioner as a necessary party to the proceedings.
The learned counsel further would submit that the revision petitioner has filed
an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2/2025 in O.S.No.726/2025 under
Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, seeking to implead the petitioner as a necessary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 03:30:57 pm )
party to the suit proceedings. The said application is still pending adjudication
before the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur. Further, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the original suit in
O.S.No.726/2023 is also pending before the said court, and both the suit and
the impleading petition have been unduly delayed, which would cause serious
prejudice to the revision petitioner. The said suit is of the year 2023 and more
than two years have been lapsed, she prays for speedy disposal of the suit in
O.S.No.726/2023 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:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 03:30:57 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 03:30:57 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 03:30:57 pm )
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. In view of the same, the Subordinate Court, Perambalur, is requested
to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.726 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible.
7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
16.10.2025
mtl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The Subordinate Court, Perambalur.
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 03:30:57 pm )
16.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 03:30:57 pm )
