Dismissed

Rev.Prince Bakthasingh v. The Commissioner

Madras HC10 Jan 2019WP/900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner for a mandatory writ forbearing municipal and revenue authorities from blocking a common pathway was dismissed. The High Court held the petition non-maintainable as the matter was already sub-judice in a pending suit where an interim injunction application was also awaiting disposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was not maintainable while the main suit and interim application were pending. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Rev.Prince Bakthasingh Vs The Commissioner — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.01.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.900 of 2019

¶6

Rev.Prince Bakthasingh ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Ariyalur. 3. The Commissioner, Jayankondam Municipality, Municipality Office, Jayankondam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur District. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondents and their men, agents or representatives from taking any action, putting up fencing or in any way preventing the ingress and egress from the petitioners premises “The Prayer Hall” having known as “The Immanuel Christ Assembly”, situated in S.No.751H1A1B at Jayamkondacholapuram village, Jayankondan, Ariyalur District and blocking the common pathway connecting the petitioners premises from Sendurai Road without providing an alternative access and till the final conclusion of the O.S.No.107 of 2018 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Muthukumar, for Mr.Paul and Paul

¶9

For R1,2 and 4 : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.E.Balamurugan, Special Government Pleader

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed forbearing the respondents from blocking the common pathway connecting the petitioner's premises from Sendurai Road without providing an alternative access till the disposal of O.S.No.107 of 2018, which is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.

¶13

According to the petitioner, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the petitioner's right to use the pathway, which was shown as "A" schedule in the suit property. In the above suit, the petitioner has also filed an application in I.A.No.403 of 2018 seeking interim injunction and the above said application is pending. Now, pending suit, the respondents are trying to close the pathway. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed forbearing the respondents from preventing the petitioner's right to use the pathway pending disposal of the above suit.

¶14

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

¶15

Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed a suit and the same is pending and the application seeking interim injunction is also pending before the trial Court. While the suit is pending, without getting any relief in the above suit, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition seeking for an interim relief. Hence, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, it is always open to him to approach the trial Court and get the suitable relief in the interim application filed in the suit. Without doing so, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

mrp/ssi

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Ariyalur.
3. The Commissioner,
Jayankondam Municipality,
Municipality Office,
Jayankondam.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udayarpalayam,
Ariyalur District.
+1 cc to The Government Pleader, SR.No.3276
+1 cc to M/s.Paul & Paul, Advocate SR.No.3451
W.P.No.900 of 2019
CA(CO)
CSL/19.03.2019

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rev.Prince Bakthasingh v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rev.Prince Bakthasingh v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Palani Vs The Regional Transport Officer

A.Anbalagan Vs The State Transport Authority

A.Anbalagan Vs The State Transport Authority

R.Gopalsamy, Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Sundararaj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Punniyakoti Vs The Registrar of Cooperative