DEVARAJ BHARATHI BHUSHAN vs K.MOORTHY
- Court
- Madras High Court
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.1397 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.7462 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010589402024}
Devaraj Bharathi Bhushan
S/o.Sri A.A.Devaraj
..Petitioner
Vs
1. K.Moorthy
S/o.Late Sri Y.K.Gowder
K.Raju(Deceased)
2. Janaki
W/o.Ramalingam
Ganga(deceased)
3. Sarasu
W/o.K.Raju
4. Ruckmani
W/o.Lakshmanan
5. Indira
D/o.Y.K.Karigowder
6. Sarojini
W/o.Late Y.K.Bhojan
N.Suresh(Deceased)
7. N.Kishore
S/o.K.C.Natarajan
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
8. Meena
D/o.K.C.Natarajan
9. Usha
D/o.K.C.Natarajan
10.S.Krishish
S/o.K.C.Natarajan
11.Meera
D/o.Y.K.Bhojan
12.Usha
D/o.Y.K,.Bhojan
13.B.Karthik
S/o.Y.K.Bhojan
K.Mathan(Since Deceased)
14.SK.Gowri
D/o.Late Y.K.Maban
15.Selvamasi
D/o.Late Mathana
16.Santhi
W/o.Late K.Raju
17.Ramya
D/o.Late K.Raju
18.R.Sampath Kumar
S/o.Late K.Raju
19.Gowriammal
W/o.Late Ranganathan
20.Janaki,
D/o.Late Ranganathan
Shri.R.Devaraj(Since Deceased)
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
21.Jothi Mani
D/o.Late Ranganathan
Y.D.Morachan(Since Deceased)
Y.D.Bheeman(Since Deceased)
22.Kannammal
W/o.Late Devaraj
23.Thilagavathy
D/o.Late Devaraj
24.Bharathy
D/o.Late Devaraj
25.Y.M.Krishnamurthy
S/o.Late Y.D.Morachan
26.Y.M.Mathesvaran
S/o.Late Y.D.Morachan
27.Meenakshi
D/o.Late Y.D.Morachan
28.Mala
D/o.Late Y.D.Morachan
29.Panchali,
W/o.Late Y.D.Bheeman
30.Lakshmi
D/o.Late Y.D.Bheeman
31.Kullan
S/o.Late Y.K.Mathan
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the order and decreetal order dated 06.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.27 of
2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Conoor.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajasekar
For Respondents : No appearance - Mr.S.Sathish Kumar [R1]
*
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the first defendant questioning the order dated
06.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.27 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Conoor, wherein the application filed by the first
respondent/plaintiff seeking substituted service, came to be allowed by the
Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the
materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. This is the second round of litigation that is taking place before the trial
Court. The first round reached up to this Court in S.A.No.388 of 2006 and this
Court, by judgment dated 22.01.2020, set aside the judgment and decree of both
Courts below and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh disposal
with a direction to the first respondent/plaintiff to file an application and
implead all the necessary parties and the trial Court was directed to dispose of
the suit within six months.
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
4. After the remand, the first respondent/plaintiff started taking steps to
implead necessary parties and that process went on for nearly 1½ years.
th
Ultimately, the proposed 38 defendant was not able to be served and therefore,
the first respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.27 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2022 to
order substituted service. The Court below has ordered substituted service.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/first defendant has filed the present civil
revision petition mainly on the ground that the mandatory requirements under
Order V Rule 20 CPC has not been satisfied in this case.
5. The Court below has taken into consideration the reason for which the
th
notice sent to the proposed 38 defendant has been returned and has come to a
th
conclusion that the proposed 38 defendant is evading service. A stand was
th
taken by the petitioner/first defendant to the effect that the proposed 38
defendant is no more and hence, steps must be taken to implead the legal heirs
th
of the proposed 38 defendant. The Court below held that there is no material to
th
show that the proposed 38 defendant is no more and therefore, the Court
proceeded to order substituted service.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in Neerja Realtors Private Limited v. Janglu (dead) through legal
representative [ (2018) 2 SCC 649 ] to impress upon this Court that substituted
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
service cannot be ordered as a matter of course without following the mandatory
requirement under Order V Rule 20 CPC.
7. In the considered view of this Court, if at all substituted service is
th
ordered and notice is effected as against the proposed 38 defendant without
th
following the procedure, it is for the proposed 38 defendant to challenge the
same and not the petitioner/first defendant. Even before this Court, when notice
th st
was sent to the proposed 38 defendant (31 respondent in the present revision),
it has been returned with an endorsement 'left'. Thus, at no point of time, notice
th
was able to be served on the proposed 38 defendant. The Court cannot keep
waiting endlessly, particularly, since this is a 2001 suit that has already
completed one full cycle and is now pending in its second round before the trial
Court. The order passed by the Court below directing substituted service cannot
be held to be illegal warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the
petitioner/first defendant can never have any grievance for ordering substituted
th
service with respect to the proposed 38 defendant.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Court below is sustained and this
civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be a direction to the Subordinate
Court, Conoor, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2002 within a period of six
(6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit a report
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
before this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gm
To
The Subordinate Court,
Conoor.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gm
Civil Revision Petition No.1397 of 2024
28-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:08 pm )