This new LAOT series seeks to demystify High Court procedure for young lawyers, litigants, and law students entering the profession. Through court-specific installments focused on different High Courts, the series aims to bridge the gap between written procedural rules and lived courtroom practice, making the everyday functioning of High Courts more accessible and intelligible.
1. Introduction
High Court procedure is notoriously opaque. While this opacity enhances the relevance of advocates on record, this comes at the cost of access to justice for litigants.
Even for newly enrolled lawyers, the hoops that one has to jump through to have a matter filed, listed and heard before High Courts are taxing. Junior lawyers usually spend their first few months of practice struggling to keep their head above water, learning procedures that have often developed in the absence of (and sometimes even contrary to) written rules. Baptism by fire is thus the only option.
This two-part series seeks to demystify the practice and procedure of the Madras High Court (hereinafter ‘MHC’ / ‘Court’).
In doing so, this series will answer five questions:
1. What steps need to be taken for a matter to be ‘filed’ and subsequently brought before a judge / bench?
2. Which judge / bench will a case be listed before?
3. What does the average lifecycle of a case before court look like?
4. How can one expedite this process in cases involving urgency?
5. What are the steps to be taken after a judgment is passed in a case?
Before answering these questions, however, a necessary caveat: each proceeding before the Court has unique procedural requirements which must be complied with. For instance, cases seeking the issuance of letters of administration / probate may require a collector’s notice to be filed along with the petition and the affidavits, in line with Order XXV, Rule 4(c) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras Original Side, 1956 (hereinafter ‘OS Rules’). These unique requirements cannot be enumerated exhaustively in a series of this nature, and the author makes no attempt to do so. Instead, this series merely seeks to cull out common themes that may serve as a base, over and above which one must account for case-specific nuances.
Part-I of this series will address questions ‘1’ and ‘2’ listed above, while Part-II will address questions ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’.With this caveat, we can proceed to the main questions that this series seeks to answer.
2. Filing and listing cases:
A. The Right Court?
Prior to initiating proceedings before the MHC, one must firstly ascertain whether the MHC would have jurisdiction over the proposed proceeding. This is particularly relevant, since the MHC also exercises original (civil and criminal) jurisdiction over parts of Chennai, as well as extraordinary (Writ) jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction from various district courts and statutory authorities. A case can be brought before the MHC only if it falls within the Court’s territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. This can only be ascertained on a case-to-case basis, depending on the nature of the dispute, the location where the cause of action arises and the value of the proceeding.
For instance, in cases involving the ordinary (non-Writ) civil jurisdiction of the Court, the Madras High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1927 read with the subsequent Madras High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Extension Act, 1985 dictate the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The Schedule of these Acts provide for specific boundaries within Chennai city, and cases which fall outside these boundaries might have to be filed before district courts in neighbouring districts. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, and jurisdiction arising out of specific statutory provisions (such as Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which Quash Petitions are often filed) extend beyond these city limits.
Similarly, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court also varies based on the nature of the proceeding. Illustratively, the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 pursuant to its 2018 amendment provides for the pecuniary jurisdiction of city civil courts in Chennai to be limited to Rs. 1 crore. Civil suits valued above this threshold would thus fall within the original jurisdiction of the MHC. This applies even to cases involving ‘commercial disputes’ (as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), with the jurisdiction for disputes between Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore lying with the Commercial Court, and only the jurisdiction for disputes above Rs. 1 crore resting with the Commercial Division of the MHC. However, cases involving the extraordinary jurisdiction of the MHC, or cases assigned to the Court through a statute (such as some IPR suits[1] or petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) would lie with the MHC irrespective of the value of the claim made.
Additionally, one must keep in mind that the Madras High Court also has a Permanent Bench seated at Madurai, which possesses territorial jurisdiction over 14 Southern districts of Tamil Nadu. This Bench possesses identical jurisdictional powers to the Madras Bench, barring ordinary original jurisdiction.
B. The Filing and Listing Process:
Once one is sure that the MHC has jurisdiction over the dispute, one can begin drafting pleadings. While it would be impossible to enumerate the specific drafting requirements for each type of case filed before the Court, there are certain requirements unique to the MHC.
Most notable of these is the emphasis given to the affidavit filed along with Petitions / Applications. While several courts across the country utilise affidavits as merely a tool to verify the contents of the accompanying petition, the MHC grants it far greater importance. In fact, the majority of the pleadings are advanced in the affidavit, with the petition / application often providing limited reference to the facts and arguments advanced. Additionally, all pleadings and documents filed before the Court must be stitched / accompanied with a cover docket. Further, it is vital to note that in several proceedings (such as suits and applications therein) the pleadings must be accompanied by a summons (either a suit summons or a judge’s summons) issued under the relevant provision of the OS Rules.[2]
Besides these commonalities, however, the pleadings and documents required vary based on the nature of the proceeding. One would be advised to check with the MHC’s Registry (hereinafter ‘Registry’) on the particulars required for each type of proceeding, prior to filing.
In this regard, the Registry is divided into four sections – the Original Side, the Appellate Side, the Writ Side and the Criminal Side. Each section of the Registry handles different types of proceedings, as their name suggests. The sections are further divided into seats – for instance, the Original Side has a common seat for filing, besides which there are individual seats for IP cases, arbitration cases and probate applications, among others. Within these seats, Registry staff carry out specific functions, once again based on the proceeding that they deal with, and this ties into the steps that need to be undertaken to file a case before the MHC.
The filing process before the MHC can be summarized into the following steps:
i. For certain types of cases (commercial suits, for instance), pleadings and documents need to be e-filed on the Indian Courts e-filing portal.[3] The e-filing requirement is only necessary for certain filings on the original side however, and supplements physical filings without replacing them. Upon e-filing, each pleading filed is assigned an ‘ATN number’ and the date / time of filing is recorded on the e-filing portal.
ii. Once e-filing has been completed (for cases that require the same) the pleadings must be physically filed, along with the ATN number, at the filing seat in the relevant section of the Registry. At this stage, once the e-filing has been verified against the ATN number, the filing section sends the physical file to the posting section which then assigns the file to an official in the Registry for scrutiny of defects. At this stage pleadings are assigned ‘SR[4] numbers’.
iii. The Registry thereafter either marks defects in the pleadings filed and returns them for rectification, or passes the pleadings to the numbering stage. If the pleadings are returned then they need to be collected from the seat for returns and refiled (e-filed and physically filed, in cases where e-filing is required) after rectifying the defects. Often, the Registry may permit defects to be remedied by hand, so long as a ‘clean copy’ – i.e., a copy of the pleadings with the defects rectified – is also submitted. This ensures that clients are not troubled to repeatedly sign revised drafts.
iv. It is also important to note that in cases where there are delays in rectifying defects, the revised filings may have to be brought before the Registrar / Assistant Registrar in order to condone the delay in refiling. Once this is done, the file is sent back to the scrutiny stage.Once the pleadings pass scrutiny, they must be presented to the Section officer / Registrar for final approval, and are then numbered as cases / documents.
v. The pleadings are finally scanned and then sent to the listing / posting branch of the Registry to be listed before court.
Listing is then determined by the posting clerk of the judge to whom the case is assigned. Typically, listing happens shortly after the filing process (and all the steps described above) are completed, depending on the caseload of that particular judge / bench. Expediting the listing process will be dealt with in ‘Part II’ / ‘Question 4’ of this series.
3. Which Judge / Bench will a case be listed before?
The MHC follows a quarterly roster system, where the portfolios of judges / benches are changed every three months. The quarterly Sitting List usually accounts for 7 division benches, that hear a variety of appeals as well as Writs to be heard by division benches (such as public interest litigations and those falling under designated subject areas), each of which is headed by one of the seven most senior judges in the MHC. The remaining judges sit single and hear cases relating to their assigned portfolio. While portfolio changes are scheduled for every three months, they can sometimes change in the interim based on the retirement or transfer of judges as well.
It is important to note that even the combination of portfolios held by a judge can change and thus litigants / advocates must keep a close eye on portfolios. For instance, while the portfolio of IPR cases has – in the recent past – been held by the same judge who holds the commercial division portfolio, the latest Sitting List (issued on 28.11.2025) assigned these portfolios to different judges.
Usually, litigants can gauge who their case will be listed before based on the Sitting List applicable when the matter passes the Registry’s scrutiny. The only exception to this rule is in cases where the portfolio judge is conflicted and thus cannot hear the case. To account for such cases, the quarterly Sitting List also provides a list of ‘alternate benches’ to whom cases will be assigned if the portfolio judge / bench is conflicted.
Further, judges / benches do not retain cases beyond their term on a portfolio merely because they have begun hearing the same. Cases will move with the portfolio every quarter and will be heard by the new judge assigned to the portfolio unless:
i. The judge hearing the case prior to the portfolio change has already reserved their judgment; or
ii. All the parties to the case submit a joint memo to the Chief Justice of the MHC to have the case move with the judge / bench – usually when the matter has been heard in part.
The next part in this series will address questions ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’ above, i.e., what does the average lifecycle of a case before court look like; how can one expedite this process in cases involving urgency; and what are the steps to be taken after a judgment is passed in a case.
[1] Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited v. Massey Ferguson Corp., C.M.A. No. 2335 of 2024.
[2] Refer Order XIV, for instance.
[3] https://filing.ecourts.gov.in/pdedev/
[4] Stamp Register
Author: Krishna Sumanth is an advocate with an independent practice before the Madras High Court
[Editorial Note: This series is planned, coordinated and edited by Jeetendra Vishwakarma. This is published by Tamanna Yadav and social media was designed by Nivedita from the LAOT team].
