At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
For the Appellant: S.S. Swaminathan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3 & R5, R. Udhayakumar, AGP, R4, M. Velmurugan, Advocate.
(Prayer in the writ appeal: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.02.2017 passed in WP.No.3852/2014.)
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.
1. The appellant P.Karthikeyan, son of Parthasarathy, has filed the present Int
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ra-Court Appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2017 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in WP.No.3852/2014 and held that in view of the pendency of the civil suits between the appellant/writ petitioner and the 4th respondent Narayana Chettiyar, who also filed a Cross-Suit, the writ petition against the cancellation of patta issued in favour of the appellant/petitioner by the concerned Tahsildar, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District, cannot be assailed in the writ jurisdiction and the parties can avail their remedies before the Civil Court only.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwas Footwear Company Limited rep.by Director V.Ravi Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram & Others reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 4404, in which the Bench has held that the right course to be adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in such case is only to refer the applicant to the civil Court only.
3. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has also submitted that while OS.No.155/2011 filed by the 4th respondent Narayana Chettiyar is pending in the Court of District Munsif, Poonamallee, the present appellant/writ petitioner P.Karthikeyan has also filed subsequently OS.No.3/2014 before the Court of Sub Judge, Poonamallee.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the clear opinion that the parties in such cases should ventilate their grievances and get their civil rights determined only in the Civil Court and they cannot be permitted to scatter the litigation in multiple Forums including the invoking of the writ jurisdiction. Since Cross-Suits filed by the parties are pending in different Courts in the same place, we are of the opinion that the trial of both suits should be consolidated to avoid possibilities of conflicting orders and the parties should abide by the decision to be made in the civil suits. We are, therefore, do not find any error in the direction given by the learned Single Judge relegating the parties to the civil suits in the matter. The present writ appeal, therefore, is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the writ appeals stands dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed