Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. Seeking permission to represent and proceed in H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2017 on behalf of his son / respondent in H.M.O.P No.2 of 2017, an application has been preferred by the revision petitioner in I.A.No......of 2017. The said application has been returned by the Court below with a query as to how the same is maintainable. It is found that the revision petitioner has not answered to the said query, however re-presented the same in the Court without answering to the said query. Again, the Court below returned the application reiterating the earlier query. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
3. It has not been properly explained by the revision petitioner as to why he has not given any reason as regards the maintainability of the application on the query raised by the Court below. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays that the Court below may be directed to take up the application on file on the revision petitioner re-presenting the application with the answers for the query raised by the Court below.
4. Considering the proceedings before the Court below, I am of the considered view that this matter should not be further delayed. Hence, the Registry is directed to return the original application filed by the revision petitioner to him under proper acknowledgement and on receipt of the same, the revision petitioner is directed to re-present the original application before the Court concerned giving reasons as to how the application is maintainable and on such re-presentation, the Court below is directed to take up the application on file, if it is maintainable and dispose of the same, in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of.
To:
The Sub-ordinate Judge, Aruppokkottai.
.