[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Ponnusamy on 23 January, 2026
2026:MHC:245
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 31 / 10 / 2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 23 / 01 / 2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1214 OF 2022
AND
C.M.P. NO.6530 OF 2022
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By the District Collector
Namakkal.
2.The District Revenue Officer
Namakkal.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Namakkal.
4.The Thasildhar
Namakkal. ... Petitioners /
Plaintiffs
Versus
Ponnusamy
Uppiliyar Street,
Vettampatti Village & Post,
Namakkal District. ... Respondent /
Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, praying to set aside the Docket Order dated February 25, 2022
passed in Unnumbered O.S.SR.No.448 of 2022 by the Sub Court,
Page No.1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
Namakkal and to direct the Sub Court, Namakkal to take on file the above
plaint and proceed with the case.
For Petitioners : Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Notice returned as 'Insufficient
address'. Hence notice is dispensed
with by this Order.
Mr.Sharath Chandran
Amicus Curiae
ORDER
Brief facts that led to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are
thus: The State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Namakkal,
and the District Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the
Thasildhar of Namakkal, are all the plaintiffs in the unnumbered Original
Suit in O.S.(SR) No.448 of 2022 on February 10, 2022. The plaint was
presented on February 9, 2022. The prayer was for declaration that the
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.320 of 2007 are null and void, for
permanent injunction not to proceed further with the execution petition in
R.E.P. No.14 of 2012 in O.S.No.320 of 2007 and for costs. The Trial Court
namely the Subordinate Court, Namakkal returned the plaint in O.S. (SR)
No.448 of 2022, stating that the maintainability of the Suit is to be
explained by the plaintiffs. On February 25, 2022, the plaint was re-
presented along with a memo from plaintiffs on the maintainability of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
Suit and it included some case laws as well. On the same day, upon
perusing the plaint, plaint documents and the memo filed, the Trial Court
rejected the plaint without numbering it. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection
of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908'
['CPC' for short], the plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision Petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the
Trial Court's Order of rejection of plaint dated February 25, 2022 and
number the plaint.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be
referred to as per their array in the plaint in O.S. (SR) No.448 of 2022, that
is to say the revision petitioners will be referred to as the plaintiffs and the
respondent herein will be referred to as the defendant.
PLAINTIFFS' CASE:
3. The plaintiffs' case in O.S. (SR) No.448 of 2022 is that, as per the
1905 Field Measurement Book [FMB], Mittah Survey No.72 of Namakkal
Mittah, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District comprised land of a total extent of
9 Acre 48 Cents. As per the 1905 FMB, Survey No.72 had six sub-
divisions. The extent comprised in each sub-division, as per 1905 FMB,
are as detailed below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
Survey No. Sub-division Extent
No. (in Acres)
72 1 0.35
2 1.60
3 1.35
4 1.93
5 1.89
6 2.36
Total 9.48
3.1. Further case of the plaintiffs is that sub-division 2 of Survey
No.72 is Government land. In 1945, defendant's grandfather namely
L.Rangama Naickar, purchased an extent of 40 Cents and an extent of 73
Cents, both within specified four boundaries, out of the total 7 Acre 53
Cents comprised in sub-divisions 3 to 6 of Survey No.72, vide Sale Deed
dated June 2, 1945, from one Karuppa Boyan. According to the plaintiffs,
Survey No.72/2 does not find place in the aforesaid Sale Deed dated June
2, 1945 and in fact, in the Sale Deed, the southern boundary to second item
therein has been shown as Mittah Poromboke, which is nothing but the
Government Land in Survey No.72/2.
3.2. Later, in the year 1960, the land in Survey No.72 was resurveyed
and the sub-divisions were altered and a new FMB was drawn as tabulated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
hereunder:
Survey No. New Extent Corresponding
sub-division (as (in Acres) old sub-divisions
per 1960 FMB) from 1905 FMB
72 1 2.19 5&6
2 3.81 2,3,4,5,6
3 1.51 3&4
5 0.67 2,3,4,5,6
6 0.95 2,3,4
Total Extent 9.48 Acres
3.3. According to the plaintiffs, major portion of the extent of old
Survey No.72/2 in 1905 FMB, has been assigned sub-division nos.5 and 6
in the 1960 FMB and they have been clearly described as Poromboke
(Kallanguthu) Land or in other words, Government Land.
3.4. While so, the defendant filed the Suit in O.S. No.320 of 2007 on
the file of the learned District Munsif, Namakkal, against the present
plaintiffs 1 and 4, seeking declaration of title and mandatory injunction to
register the defendant's name in the revenue accounts and the A-Register,
in respect of the suit properties described therein which comprised of 94
Cents in new Survey No.72/5 and 1 Acre 18 Cents in new Survey No.72/6.
In the defendant's Suit in O.S. No.320 of 2007, learned District Munsif,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
Namakkal without appreciating the documentary evidence in the right
perspective, passed an Ex-parte Decree dated July 20, 2007, against the
present plaintiffs 1 and 4 who were the defendants therein.
3.5. Only on December 15, 2021, after strenuous efforts, the plaintiffs
were able to obtain the 1905 FMB from the Egmore Archives. Only upon
obtaining the 1905 FMB and comparing it with the 1960 FMB, the
plaintiffs came to know that the new sub-divisions 5 and 6 of Survey
No.72 correspond to old sub-division 2 of Survey No.72 and that new sub-
division 5 and 6 comprise of Government Lands. According to the
plaintiffs, the defendant suppressed the true facts and falsely described the
suit properties in his Suit, as if he has right in new sub-divisions 5 and 6 of
Survey No.72 corresponding to old sub-division 2, with an ulterior motive
to usurp the Government Land. The suit properties therein are not covered
under the Sale Deed dated June 2, 1945 and do not belong to the
defendant.
3.6. The plaintiffs' attempts to set aside the Ex-parte Decree dated July
20, 2007 passed against them went in vein. Hence the Suit in O.S. (SR)
No.448 of 2022.
4. The trajectory of the matter to this Court has already been set out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
supra and there is no need to repeat it. On April 27, 2022, when the matter
was listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.Seshasayee, this Civil Revision
Petition was admitted on the point for consideration "whether a litigant
who was arrayed as defendant in an earlier suit, but has chosen not to
contest the suit and allowed an ex-parte decree to be passed, has the right
to file a fresh suit alleging fraud on court after exhausting the procedural
remedy of setting aside the earlier ex-parte decree", and Mr.Sharath
Chandran, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in
deciding the matter.
5. Thereafter, when the matter came up before Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.
Lakshminarayanan on April 30, 2024, the learned Single Judge invited the
attention of the learned Counsels on either side to the Judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in K.S. Geetha -vs- Stanley Buck and
Dr.P.Sedhu Ammal, reported in AIR 2003 Mad 146, and invited arguments
on the maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition assailing a speaking
order of rejection of plaint.
6. Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs would submit that the defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
suppressed the truth and falsely described the suit properties as if the land
in new Survey Nos.72/5 and 72/6 belongs to him and obtained an Ex-parte
Decree which amounts to fraud on the Court. The said facts came to the
knowledge of the plaintiffs only after obtaining the 1905 FMB from the
Egmore Archives on December 15, 2021. Soon thereafter, the plaintiffs
presented the plaint on February 9, 2022. The Trial Court without
assigning case number and without following the principles of natural
justice, rejected the plaint, by stating that the reliefs sought for in the plaint
are not maintainable and is also barred by limitation. She would further
submit that the Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that limitation in this
case is a question of both fact and law, and hence, it can be decided only
after hearing the parties under Order X of CPC or during the course of
trial. In any case, the Trial Court ought to have heard the plaintiffs on the
point of limitation. The Trial Court failed to do so. As the Trial Court
violated the principles of natural justice, this revision under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is maintainable. Accordingly, she would pray to
set aside the Docket Order passed by the Trial Court dated February 25,
2022 by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 and direct the Trial
Court to number the plaint.
7. To be noted, notice to the respondent herein / defendant was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
returned as 'insufficient address'. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the view that notice to the respondent is not
necessary in this Civil Revision Petition and it shall hereby be dispensed
with.
8. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this
Court would submit that the Trial Court lost sight of the distinction
between seeking a relief and entitlement to a relief. It is for the litigant to
seek a particular relief irrespective of the fact as to whether the Court may
ultimately grant such relief. The entitlement of a plaintiff to a particular
relief cannot be examined without numbering the plaint. That can be done
only after considering the defence of the defendants and after considering
the evidence available on record. Even while assuming that one among the
reliefs sought for is barred by law, the plaint cannot be rejected in part.
Further he would submit that when the plaintiffs claim and allege in the
plaint that they have gained knowledge of a particular fact which gives
right to a cause of action at a particular point of time, the same must be
accepted as correct at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore,
the proof / correctness of such knowledge cannot be examined at the stage
of numbering of the plaint. Proof of knowledge is a matter of evidence and
the issue of evidence in such cases is a question of fact and law which can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
be decided only after trial. He would draw attention to the Judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in Kunjamma -vs- Manickam Pillai,
reported in 2025 (4)CTC 798 : 2025 – 3 – L.W.181, where it was held that
numbering a plaint is a judicial act. Further, he relies on the following
decisions in support of his submissions:
(i) Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited -vs- C.M.
Hariraj, reported in 2002-3-L.W.476;
(ii) Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Selvaraj -vs- Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant
India Limited, reported in 2021-3-L.W.677;
(iii) Stanley Buck's Case [cited supra];
(iv) Judgment of a learned Single Judge of Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in Gorripati
Veera Venkata Rao -vs- Ethalapaka Vanaja, reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine AP 50.
9. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the
learned Amicus Curiae. Perused the materials available on record.
10. This Court shall first deal with the maintainability of this Civil
Revision Petition filed challenging a speaking order of rejection of plaint.
This Court deems fit to refer to Section 2 (2) of CPC which defines
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
'Decree' as thus:
"2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,—
xxx xxx xxx xxx x x
x
(2)“decree” means the formal expression of an
adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it,
conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to
all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be
either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the
rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question
within section 144, but shall not include—
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an
appeal from an order, or
(b) any order of dismissal for default.
Explanation.—A decree is preliminary when further
proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely
disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely
disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly
final;"
11. Section 96 of CPC reads thus:
"96. Appeal from original decree.—(1) Save where
otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from
every decree passed by any Court exercising original
jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the
decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex
parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
with the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from
a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small
Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the
original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees."
12. Section 2 (2) of CPC clearly lays down that rejection of a plaint
is deemed to be a Decree. Section 96 of CPC provides that appeal lies from
every Decree subject to a few exceptions and those exceptions are not a
concern while dealing with the present matter. If the Court, after adhering
to the principles of natural justice, passed an Order under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC rejecting a plaint, it is deemed to be a Decree and thereby,
attracts the appeal remedy under Section 96 of CPC. If such an Order is
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court can
exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set
aside the same [vide C.M. Hariraj's Case (cited supra)]. In this case, the
Trial Court without numbering the plaint and without affording sufficient
opportunity to the plaintiffs to put forth their case on the point of limitation
and to explain the maintainability of the Suit, rejected the plaint vide its
Order dated February 25, 2022, which is the Order under challenge. In
other words, the Order under challenge was passed in violation of
principles of natural justice, and that makes this Civil Revision Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
filed under Article 227 maintainable, as held in C.M. Hariraj's Case.
13. This Court in Selvaraj's Case [cited supra], held that the act of
numbering the plaint is only a ministerial act and not a judicial one. It was
further held that the Court can reject the plaint at the numbering stage
itself, only on certain limited grounds. Those limited grounds include the
cases where the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the Suit [See
V. Vijayakumar -vs- M. Murugadoss, reported in 2014 (2) MWN (Civil)
617, where the Suit is expressly barred by a statute, where despite
sufficient opportunities, the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of
Order VII Rule 9 of CPC or where it is apparent on the face of it that the
Suit is barred by limitation as a matter of pure question of law [See
Dahiben -vs- Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, reported in (2020) 7 SCC
366]. If the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, trial
is required and in such a scenario, the plaint cannot be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC; in such a scenario, the Trial Court must number
the plaint and hear the plaintiffs in open court on the point of limitation
and only then the Court shall come to a conclusion as to whether the plaint
is to be rejected as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
14. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that a learned Single Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
of this Court in Kunjamma's Case [cited supra] has held that numbering
of plaint rather falls under the category of judicial act and not that of
ministerial act. This Court is unable to subscribe to the said view of the
learned Single Judge. As held in Selvaraj's Case [cited supra], numbering
of a case does not involve significant application of judicial mind, it does
not require the Court to understand the plaint primarily on the plane of law,
and hence, it is a ministerial act. Either ways, it would not affect the
decision in this Civil Revision Petition.
15. Be that as it may, it is a settled legal position that fraud vitiates
all solemn acts. If any Order or Decree is obtained by playing fraud on
Court, it becomes a nullity. In this regard, reference shall be made to S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu -vs- Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1.
Supressing a relevant and vital information which puts the party doing so
in an advantageous position or which misleads the Court also amounts to
fraud.
16. Further, if a Court on demurrer sees that the Suit is barred by
limitation or by any law in force at the time of scrutinising the plaint, the
Court shall assign Suit number to the plaint, register the same in the Suit
Register and post the matter under the cause list caption 'for hearing on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
maintainability'. After hearing the plaintiffs' side in open court and after
perusing the plaint and the plaint documents, if the Trial Court is not
convinced, it may pass an Order under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC rejecting
the plaint. In such a course, the Trial Court would be passing a Fair and
Decretal Order, the result of the Suit would be entered in the Suit Register
and the same would be updated in the E-Courts portal as well. On the other
hand, when the Trial Court chooses to pass an Order without numbering
the plaint, it would be difficult to even ascertain the status of the matter or
locate the case bundle at a later point of time when the matter is in appeal
before the Appellate Court. Further, once a plaint is rejected, the rejection
order is deemed to be a Decree as per the definition of Decree in Section 2
(2) of CPC. This requires the Trial Court to draw a formal Decree /
Decretal Order upon rejecting plaint; in the absence of a formal Decree /
Decretal Order, there would be no appeal possible under Section 96 of
CPC. In such a case, the plaint could only be in the case bundle for which
numbering the plaint is essential. The possibility of unnumbered suit files
being misplaced either inadvertently, or deliberately with the intention of
erasing the traces of filing and Court's decision, cannot be ignored. The
absence of a suit number renders the proceedings susceptible to
irregularities and tampering. All these could be avoided by numbering the
Suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
17. Firstly in this case, the Trial Court had returned the Original
Plaint to the plaintiffs, with its rejection order annexed to it. Hence,
technically speaking it is not a rejection order. At its best, it can only be
considered as an order of return of plaint. Secondly, the plaintiffs plead that
the (alleged) fraud played by the defendant on the Court came to their
knowledge only on December 15, 2021, when they obtained the 1905 FMB
from the Egmore Archives and that the Suit is not barred by limitation
under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said averments render
the question of limitation in this case a mixed question of fact and law. The
veracity of those averments could be decided only while examining the
parties under Order X of CPC or at the time of trial. In this regard, it is
apposite to cite the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Arivandandam
-vs- T.V. Satyapal, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467, wherein it was held as
follows:
"5. … The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting
has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud
at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order X CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus
litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal
Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and
must be triggered against them."
[Emphasis supplied by this Court]
18. But in this case, the Trial Court without considering the same
and without hearing the plaintiffs on the point of limitation, rejected the
plaint without even numbering it. Hence, the approach of the Trial Court is
erroneous, in violation of principles of natural justice, and not in
consonance with law and therefore, the Order dated February 25, 2022
passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is liable to be set aside.
19. As regards Stanley Buck's Case [cited supra], when the
plaintiff(s) therein presented the plaint, the defendants therein entered
appearance and filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11
read with Section 151 of CPC and sought to reject the plaint. The Trial
Court in that case, after hearing both sides, allowed the Interlocutory
Application and rejected the plaint. The plaintiffs therein preferred a
revision over the same before this Court. Unlike the case at hand, the plaint
therein was numbered and the Order passed by the Trial Court therein did
not suffer from any violation of principles of natural justice. It was in these
facts and circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
appeal would lie over an Order rejecting plaint and not revision. The said
ruling is distinguishable on facts and hence, not applicable to the case at
hand.
20. No quarrel with the other case law relied on by the learned
Amicus Curiae, wherein Selvaraj's Case [cited supra] was followed.
21. As regards the point (set out supra) raised by his Lordship
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.Seshasayee vide Order dated April 27, 2022, as
stated supra, it is a settled legal position that fraud vitiates all solemn acts
and if any Order or Decree is obtained by playing fraud on Court, it
becomes a nullity in the eyes of law. Hence, the plaintiffs being the
defendants in O.S. No.320 of 2007 who did not contest the said Suit and
allowed an Ex-parte Decree to be passed, after exhausting the procedural
remedy for setting aside the same, can seek declaration that such an Order,
Judgment or Decree as the case may be, is null and void.
22. Before parting, this Court would like to recognise the sincere
efforts of Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned Amicus Curiae and applaud his
assistance to the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
23. As stated supra, the Docket Order dated February 25, 2022
passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the plaintiffs are directed to re-submit the original plaint
along with the plaint documents if any in their hand, before the Trial Court
within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The Trial
Court shall assign case number, afford sufficient opportunity, hear on the
limitation and maintainability aspect, and if satisfied issue summons to the
defendant and proceed with the case as per law. If the Trial Court is not
satisfied to entertain the plaint upon such hearing, it shall pass appropriate
Order in exercise of its judicial conscience and judicial mind in accordance
with law. Needless to mention that the Trial Court shall proceed
untrammelled / uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this
Order, if any, on the merits of the case.
24. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above
terms. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Revision
Petitioners shall bear their own costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition shall be closed.
23 / 01 / 2026
Index : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
TK
Note to Registry
Registry is directed to return the original plaint annexed in the
typed-set of papers to the Revision Petitioners.
To
The Sub Court
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. NO.1214 OF 2022
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN
CRP NO.1214 OF 2022
23 / 01 / 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
