Clerical misnumbering cannot defeat an appeal where the correct underlying order is undisputed.

The petitioners, cultivating tenants, were parties to two proceedings: one concerning fixation of fair rent in FRP No. 29 of 1994 and another concerning eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, in OP No. 311 of 2002.

After an earlier remand by the High Court in CRP No. 393 of 2022, OP No. 311 of 2002 remained pending before the Revenue Court for fresh orders.

Fair rent was fixed by order dated 11 June 2025, and the petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Court within time.

However, the order and subsequent corrected proceedings incorrectly referred to OP No. 311 of 2002 instead of the fair-rent proceeding, referred to in the judgment as FRP No. 29 of 2024, thereby preventing the appeal from being taken up on merits.

The petitioners approached the Special Deputy Collector for correction, but the erroneous reference continued.

The respondents contended that the correct reference had already been incorporated in the proceedings dated 11 June 2025 and that copies had been supplied to the petitioners.

Whether the petitioners’ appeal against the fair-rent fixation order could be entertained despite the erroneous reference to OP No. 311 of 2002 in the copy of the order supplied to them, when the proceeding actually concerned FRP No. 29 of 1994/2024?

Whether the District Court should be directed to number and hear the petitioners’ Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without insisting upon a certified copy of the corrected proceedings?

Whether the first respondent/landlord should be permitted to withdraw ₹2,50,000 deposited pursuant to the conditional stay order?

Whether the Revenue Court should be directed to conclude OP No. 311 of 2002 within a specified time?

The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, as invoked in the revision petition.

The Court applied the procedural principle that an inadvertent clerical or identification error in an order should not defeat a statutory appeal where the nature and subject matter of the proceeding are otherwise clear, particularly when the appeal was filed within time and no wilful or mala fide delay was established.

It also applied the principle that procedural requirements, including production of a certified copy, should not be insisted upon where the relevant order and its correct identity are admitted by the opposite party and counsel.

The Court further relied on its earlier direction in CRP No. 393 of 2022 requiring the Revenue Court to dispose of OP No. 311 of 2002 within six months.

The Court found that the petitioners had acted with due diligence by filing the appeal within time and approaching the Special Deputy Collector for correction after the District Court identified the incorrect proceeding number.

Although the respondents demonstrated that the correct fair-rent proceeding had been referred to in the order dated 11 June 2025, the copy initially supplied to the petitioners contained only the incorrect reference to OP No. 311 of 2002.

The Court therefore treated the matter as a communication or clerical error rather than wilful delay or abuse of process.

Since the respondents admitted that the fair-rent order did not relate to OP No. 311 of 2002, the District Court was directed to accept the proceedings dated 11 June 2025, without requiring a certified copy, number CMA SR No. 10341 of 2025, and hear it on merits.

As to the deposited amount, the Court considered that ₹2,50,000 represented approximately 25% of the arrears of fair rent and concluded that permitting withdrawal would not cause serious prejudice to the petitioners.

Separately, because OP No. 311 of 2002 had remained pending despite the earlier remand and the matter had already been argued, the Court considered it necessary to impose a definite time limit for pronouncement of the final order.

The petitioners were permitted to produce the proceedings dated 11 June 2025 relating to the fair-rent proceeding before the District Court.

The District Court was directed to number CMA SR No. 10341 of 2025, hear both sides, and dispose of the appeal within two months, without insisting upon a certified copy.

The first respondent was permitted to withdraw ₹2,50,000 deposited pursuant to the conditional stay order.

The Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector was directed to pass final orders in OP No. 311 of 2002 within four weeks from receipt of the High Court’s order.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.