CRP/6362/2026 of N.Desiappan (died) Vs S.Viswanathan on 6 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of return passed by the trial Court dated 23.02.2026, returning the application filed by the petitioners, seeking to re-open the case, which was dismissed as not pressed.

2. It is seen from the typed set of papers, the father of the 1st petitioner and the first petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 2020 on the file of Sub Court, Mettupalayam, against the respondents, seeking declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 25.06.2009 executed by the plaintiffs therein in favour of the first defendant was only for the purpose of prosecuting the case in O.A.No.3184 of 1981 and to manage the properties and not for the purpose of creating any encumbrance or alienation of the suit properties. They have also sought for a declaration that sale deed dated 16.10.2009 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on the strength of the Power of Attorney mentioned above was null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. They also sought for a permanent injunction, restraining the second defendant from encumbering the suit properties.

3. When the suit was pending, one Nagammal, sister of the plaintiff therein, filed an application before the District Registrar, Coimbatore, seeking entry in the registration index regarding the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant and the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. The District Registrar, passed an order, directing the parties to work out their remedy before the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the said Nagammal filed an appeal before the Zonal Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Coimbatore and he, in his proceedings in e/f/vz;/1512-,2-2022 dated 07.12.2022, held that the document to the extent of her share was a fraudulent one and consequently, the sale deed executed by the first defendant in the suit in favour of the second defendant was also a fraudulent one. He directed incorporation of the entry in the index of the Register, recording the fraudulent nature of the above mentioned documents. Thereafter, the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2020 filed a memo before the trial Court on 02.02.2023, seeking leave of the Court to not press the suit. The memo reads as follows: “The Plaintiffs submit that in pursuance to the subsequent developments the plaintiffs are not pressing the suit. Therefore the plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the suit as not pressed and render justice.”

4. Based on the above said memo filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, the main suit was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a writ petition before this Court, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration regarding the fraudulent nature of the documents. The said writ petition in W.P.No.33391 of 2025 was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration was quashed.

5. Even prior to filing of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that the 2nd defendant in the suit, which was not pressed, attempted to alienate the property based on the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration. Hence, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking to re-open the case, which was dismissed as not pressed. The said application was returned by the trial Court on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the main suit was already dismissed as not pressed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner withdrew the suit in view of the order passed by the Deputy Inspector of Registration. The said order has been quashed by this Court in the above mentioned writ petition and in such circumstances, the petitioners want to get along with the suit. Hence, the application has been filed, seeking to recall the order and restore the suit for disposal on merits.

7. It is seen from the typed set of papers the application had been filed by the 1st petitioner on 04.03.2025 and the same was returned. Later, the papers were re-presented by the 1st petitioner on 30.01.2026, offering his explanation. The trial Court, without considering the explanation, again returned the papers on 23.02.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

8. The trial Court returned the papers by raising objections with regard to the maintainability. The 1st petitioner, while re-presenting the papers, offered his explanation. If the Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the matter shall be called in open Court and the petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity to put forth his case. Instead of following the said procedure, the trial Court is not justified in returning the papers, citing the very same reasons.

9. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is directed to re-present the papers in Interlocutory Application filed by him on 04.03.2025 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by offering his explanation. If the trial Court is satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, it can number the matter and proceed and dispose of the same in accordance with law. On the other hand, if not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, the petitioners shall be afforded with an opportunity to put forth their case and thereafter, the order shall be passed on merits.

10. With these directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Registry is directed to return the original Interlocutory Application papers filed by the petitioners to the learned counsel for the petitioners. kak To The learned Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. kak CRP No. 6362 of 2026 06-10-2026