Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- R VIJAYAKUMAR
Provisions considered
Judgment
Rev. Aplw(MD).No.86 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 08.12.2025 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARRev. Aplw(MD)No.86 of 2025andW.M.P(MD) No.13151 of 2025inW.P(MD) No.14273 of 2025M.Shivakumar ... Petitioner / Petitioner- Vs-1. The District Registrar Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
Aruppukottai Nadargal Uravinmurai Pothu Abiviruthi Trust, Represented by its Secretary, No.42, Big Bazaar Street, Aruppukottai – 626 101.
Sudhakar President of Aruppukottai Nadargal Uravinmurai Pothu Abiviruthi Trust, No.42, Big Bazaar Street, Aruppukottai – 626 101. ... Respondents/ Respondents1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev. Aplw(MD).No.86 of 2025PRAYER: Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., praying this Court to review the order in W.P(MD) No.14273 of 2025 dated 21.05.2025 on the file of this Court. For Petitioner: Mr.R.UdhayakumarFor R1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government PleaderFor R2 and R3: Mr.A.V.Arun ORDERThe present Review Application has been filed seeking to review the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.14273 of 2025 on 21.05.2025.2. The said writ petition was filed seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent namely, the District Registrar, Virudhunagar District, wherein he had accepted the Form-VII vide application No.45/2025, dated 24.04.2025 with regard to the election of the second respondent Trust.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev. Aplw(MD).No.86 of 20253. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, initially the District Registrar had rejected the Form-VII by way of proceedings dated 09.08.2024. Therefore, he cannot review his own order and pass a fresh order on 24.04.2025 accepting Form VII.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent pointed out that the parties aggrieved over the order dated 09.08.2024 have approached the Deputy Inspector General of Registration who has chosen to pass an order dated 11.11.2024.
Relying upon the said submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the official respondents to provide a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, dated 11.11.2024, and on receipt of the same, the writ petitioner was permitted to challenge the same, if he is so advised.
The present Review Petition has been filed seeking to review the 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev. Aplw(MD).No.86 of 2025above said order primarily on the ground that on 11.11.2024, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration has not passed any order at all. He had only received a complaint from the parties aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2024 and he had only requested to the District Registrar look out into the matter.
This Court had called for the records from the official respondent and perused it.
A perusal of the records reveal that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration only received some letters expressing grievance who in turn had requested the District Registrar to consider the grievance. In fact, after receipt of such a communication from the Deputy Inspector General of Registration dated 11.11.2024, the District Registrar has chosen to again return the Form-VII on 10.12.2024, on the ground that proper documents have not been enclosed. It was further pointed out that, in case of production of proper documents accepting the Form – VII would be considered.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev. Aplw(MD).No.86 of 20259. A perusal of the records further reveal that on 10.03.2025 Form – VII submitted by the second respondent Society has been accepted by the authority.
In the light of the above said facts, it is clear that though order dated 24.04.2025 has been challenged in W.P(MD) No.14273 of 2025 no order has been passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration after the said order. In fact, order accepting Form VII has been passed on 10.03.2025. In such an event, this Court is of the opinion that, as on today, the order dated 10.03.2025 stands and without challenging the same, the present Review Application would not be maintainable. Even assuming that there is no order dated 11.11.2024 by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, unless the validity of the order dated 10.03.2025 is put to challenge in a manner known to law, the submission erroneously or otherwise made by the official respondent at the time of disposal of writ petition on 21.05.2025 may not have any effect whatsoever in the review application.
With liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev. Aplw(MD).No.86 of 202510.03.2025 passed by the first respondent, if he is so advised, this Review Application stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 08.12.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoNCC: Yes/NoebsiTo1. The District Registrar Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.2. The Secretary, Aruppukottai Nadargal Uravinmurai Pothu Abiviruthi Trust, No.42, Big Bazaar Street, Aruppukottai – 626 101.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev. Aplw(MD).No.86 of 2025R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.ebsi Rev. Apl.W(MD)No.86 of 202508.12.2025 7/7
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.