Umapathi vs Sumathi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 27, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1494559

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1494559
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.Thamilselvi
Decided On: Mar 27, 2026
Case Number: CRP/5468/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umapathi

Respondent

Sumathi

Excerpt

.....03.09.2025 made in ia no.11 of 2025 in os no.118 of 2023 on the file of the court of ii additional district judge, tindivanam, by allowing this crp. page1 of 4 for petitioner(s): mr.t. dhanasekaran for respondent(s): mr.r.revathy for r1 r2 - vacated mr.c.sathish government advocate for r3 and r4orderchallenging the impugned order passed in i.a.no.11 of 2025 in o.s.no.118 of 2023 by the learned ii additional district judge, tindivanam, the revision petitioner/plaintiff preferred this civil revision petition.2. before the trial court, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to issue summons to the tahsildar, vanur as well as assistant engineer, tangedco, thiruchitrambalam, vanur taluk to examine them inorder to prove the cancellation of patta and the cancellation of electricityassessment. but, the trial judge failed to consider the same and erroneously dismissed the application. aggrieved over that, this civil revision petition has been filed.3. on perusal of records, it is seen that now the trial has begun. at thisstage, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to issue summons to the tahsildar, vanur and the assistant engineer, tangedco, thiruchitrambalam, vanur to examine them as witnesses and the respondents 1 and 2 are also ready for trial. therefore, by issuing summons on the side of revision petitioner/plaintiff, he is entitled to examine them as witnesses. but the page2 of 4 trial judge failed to grant such opportunity. considering that, this court is inclined to set aside the findings rendered in i.a.no.11 of 2025 in o.s.no.118 of 2023 by the ii additional district judge, tindivanam. accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. no costs. consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no rpp to the ii additional district judge, tindivanam. page3 of 4 t.v.thamilselvi j. rpp and page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND Umapathi S/o. Loganatha, Pattanur Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Sumathi W/o. Anbazhagan, No.23, Puthu Street, Manapattu Pett, Bakur Komune, Puducherry.
2. Rajeswari W/o. Hariharakumar, No.18/15, Valluvar Street, Jaganathan Nagar, Arumpakkam, Chennai - 106.
3. The District Registrar District Registrar Office, Gingee Road, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
4. The Sub Registrar Vanur, Villupuram District. ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decree dated 03.09.2025 made in IA No.11 of 2025 in OS No.118 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, by allowing this CRP. Page1 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.T. Dhanasekaran For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Revathy For R1 R2 - Vacated Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate For R3 And R4

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.118 of 2023 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Vanur as well as Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur Taluk to examine them in

order to prove the cancellation of patta and the cancellation of electricity

assessment. But, the trial judge failed to consider the same and erroneously dismissed the application. Aggrieved over that, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. On perusal of records, it is seen that now the trial has begun. At this

stage, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Vanur and the Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur to examine them as witnesses and the respondents 1 and 2 are also ready for trial. Therefore, by issuing summons on the side of revision petitioner/plaintiff, he is entitled to examine them as witnesses. But the Page2 of 4 trial judge failed to grant such opportunity. Considering that, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings rendered in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.118 of 2023 by the II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To The II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam. Page3 of 4 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. RPP AND Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Umapathi vs Sumathi Same Judge Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.Thamilselvi