A plaint must be numbered without undue delay if otherwise in order.

The petitioner filed a suit in a representative capacity seeking, among other reliefs, to challenge a resolution appointing office-bearers and to obtain directions for an election and accounts

The District Munsif Court, Madurai, repeatedly returned the unnumbered plaint, including with a query about the suit’s maintainability in a representative capacity; after the petitioner answered that query, the plaint was returned again without a new ground

The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to number the suit

The High Court called for a report, following which the trial court reported that the plaint was ready for numbering and that its office had been instructed to number it upon re-presentation or in accordance with the High Court’s directions

Article 227 of the Constitution was invoked as the basis for the High Court’s supervisory intervention

The judgment does not set out or apply any other statutory provision or precedent as a rule of decision.

The Court found that the petitioner had substantially answered the queries raised by the trial court office, yet the plaint remained unnumbered after repeated returns

The trial court’s report then confirmed that the plaint was ready for numbering and that the office had been directed to number it upon re-presentation or pursuant to the High Court’s directions

In these circumstances, the Court directed numbering, while preserving the qualification that the plaint must otherwise be in order

The Registry was directed to return the original impugned order to the petitioner for re-presentation after retaining a copy; no costs were awarded.