Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C V KARTHIKEYAN, ANDK RAJASEKAR
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CMP No. 8567 of 2026__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARCMP No. 8567 of 2026inA.S (SR) No.11698 of 2026 The Revenue Divisional OfficerCoimbatore South, Coimbatore-18...Appellant(s)Vs1.Murugesan2.Sangeetha3.Arumugam4.Mani5.Elisabat Maharani6.Vanithamani,7.Vijayarani,8.Anthonyraj,9.Sarojini,10.Thiyagarajan,11.Karupusamy12.Chenniappan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 8567 of 2026__________Page2 of 613. Balasubramanian,14.Ganapathy Gounder15.Natrajan,16.Ponnammal,17.Murugasen18.Dharmalingam,19.Rajeshwari,20.Dhavasiappan,21.Joseph Anthonysamy,22.Karupusamy,23.Palanisamy,24.Chinnasamy,25.Kumarasamy,26.Velusamy,27.Ranganathan28.Ganesh,29.Hari Ramakrishnan,30.Sathish,31.Thangadurai,32.Balasubramanian,33.Natrajan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 8567 of 2026__________Page3 of 634.
Papathi,35.Krishnan,36.Ramasamy37.Karupusamy,38.Duraisamy,39.Rangadurai,40.Ganeshan41.Natrajan42.Udayakumar43.Subbaiya44.Josephe Juliyana45.Sailaja46.Murugesan47.Sivaraj48.Kalamani49.Arumugam50.Ramasamy51.Sundaram52.Dhanalakshmi53.Krishnamoorthy54.Sivagami https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 8567 of 2026__________Page4 of 655. Puspha56.Selvaraj57.Senthil Kumar58.Ponnusamy59.Jeyaraj60.Valliammal61.Ramasamy62.Subbulakshmi63.Posaraja64.Senniappan65.Pappappan66.Senniappan67.Valliammal68.Dhanalakshmi69.Balasubramanian70.Vijayakumari71.Ramasamy72.Thangavel73.Rajeshwaran74.Velusamy75.Jeevitha https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 8567 of 2026__________Page5 of 676. Kavin77.Parimala78.Dhanasekar79.Power Grid Corporation of India Limited(Government of India undertaking)Rep. by its General Manager, Arasur, Coimbatore District...Respondent(s)Petition filed under 151 CPC to accept and approve the cause title shown in this letters patent appeal by substituting the proper beneficiary organization, namely M/s.
Operative part
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (Government of India Undertaking) as the 79th Respondent, in place of the erroneously included Deputy Chief Engineer, Southern Railways, Salem in the LAOP Order. For Appellant(s):Mr. G.Nanmaran Special Government PleaderFor Respondent(s):M/S. T.A.Shagul HameedORDER(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)This petition has been filed to rectify the error arising from the inclusion of Deputy Chief Engineer, Southern Railways, Salem as a beneficiary party in the proceedings.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 8567 of 2026__________Page6 of 6C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.ANDK.RAJASEKAR, J.gpa3. We are of the view that necessary amendments to be carried out by the trial Court. The appellant shall approach the trial Court seeking necessary amendments. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal suit shall stand rejected at the SR Stage itself. (C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 10-04-2026gpaCMP No. 8567 of 2026 inA.S (SR) No.11698 of 2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.