Madras High Court: Civil revision not maintainable against mere return memo—”Party must first re-present petition with explanation”

[09/03, 08:18] sekarreporter1: “Skip to content

Home – News – Madras High Court: Civil revision not maintainable against mere return memo—”Party must first re-present petition with explanation”

Posted inNews
Madras High Court: Civil revision not maintainable against mere return memo—”Party must first re-present petition with explanation”
Posted by
Rawlaw
March 8, 2026
No Comments
Bookmark
Share this article
1. Court’s decision
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a return memo issued by the trial court. The High Court held that a return memo issued at the stage of scrutiny does not determine the rights of the parties and therefore cannot be challenged through revision proceedings.

The Court clarified that when a petition is returned merely for clarification regarding maintainability, the proper course for the party is to re-present the petition with an explanation. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

2. Facts
The dispute arose in execution proceedings pending before the X Assistant City Civil Court in Chennai. During the course of those proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to raise attachment over a scheduled property.

The petitioner also requested the court to communicate to the relevant registering authority that the attachment order dated 18 October 2022 had been lifted so that necessary entries could be corrected in official records.

However, the application was returned at the scrutiny stage by the trial court through a return memo dated 11 February 2026. The petitioner challenged this return memo before the High Court by filing a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Issues
The High Court examined whether a civil revision petition can be maintained against a return memo issued by a trial court during the scrutiny stage of a petition.

The Court also considered whether returning an application for clarification regarding maintainability amounts to a judicial determination capable of being challenged in revision.

Another issue before the Court was whether the petitioner could claim to be an aggrieved party when the trial court had merely granted time to re-present the petition along with an explanation.

4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court had wrongly returned the application at the scrutiny stage on the ground of maintainability. According to the petitioner, questions regarding maintainability should be decided only after numbering the petition, taking it on file, and hearing the parties.

It was submitted that by returning the petition without numbering it, the trial court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The petitioner contended that the trial court should have numbered the application and decided the issue of maintainability through a reasoned order after hearing both sides.

On this basis, the petitioner sought intervention by the High Court to set aside the return memo and direct the trial court to entertain the application.

5. Respondent’s arguments
Although the order primarily records the petitioner’s submissions, the Court independently examined the nature of the return memo issued by the trial court.

The High Court noted that the return memo did not reject the application or decide the issue of maintainability. Instead, the trial court had simply called upon the petitioner to explain the maintainability of the application and granted two weeks’ time for re-presentation.

Thus, the trial court had not passed any final order affecting the petitioner’s rights.

6. Analysis of the law
The Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Revision lies only against orders that determine rights or involve jurisdictional errors in adjudication by subordinate courts.

A return memo issued at the scrutiny stage is administrative in nature and does not amount to a judicial
[09/03, 08:18] Meta AI: The Madras High Court held that a civil revision petition can’t be filed against a trial court’s return memo issued at scrutiny. Since a return memo doesn’t decide rights—it just asks the party to re-present with an explanation—the proper step is to comply, not challenge it in revision. The High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable.