Dismissed

K.Ponnusamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Aug 2020WP/746/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 for demarcating properties. The Court held it was not maintainable since a civil suit for the same relief was pending and had been dismissed for non-prosecution, rendering parallel proceedings impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner forbidden from pursuing parallel proceedings; writ petition dismissed; liberty to file application to restore previously dismissed civil suit.

K.Ponnusamy Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 03.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.746 of 2013 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

K.Ponnusamy … Petitioner
v.
1. The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District.
4. The Thasildar,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Tiruchengode.
5. Nallan
6. Venkatachalam … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents 3 and 4 to demarcate and subdivide the properties at
S.Nos. 36/1D, 36/1E and 36/1F5B as per the respective sale deeds.
For Petitioner :Mr.R. Jayaprakash
For Respondent :Ms. A. Mathumathi,

¶8

Special Govt. Pleader-for R1 to R4 Mr. N. Manoharan – for R5 No Appearance – for R6

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to demarcate and subdivide the properties at S.Nos. 36/1D, 36/1E and 36/1F5B as per the respective sale deeds.

¶12

Admittedly, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.67 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, against the respondents 5, 6 and also the son of the 5^th respondent, for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner choose to file the present Writ Petition in the year 2013 seeking for the releif as mentioned above.

¶13

When the Civil Suit is pending for declaration and permanent injunction, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained for the reason that he cannot prosecute two parallel proceedings.

¶14

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non prosecution on 08.07.2015.

¶15

Mr. N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has chosen to file a Civil Suit for a comprehensive relief and having allowed the suit to be dismissed for non prosecution, he cannot get a relief in the present Writ Petition.

¶16

I agree with the submissions made by the learned cousnel appearing for the 5^th respondent. When the petitioner has filed the Civil Suit in the year 2008 and during the pendency of the suit, he could not have filed the Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to file an application for restoring the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2008, which was dismissed for non prosecution in the year 2015. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶18

True Copy

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

To
1. The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District.
4. The Thasildar,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Tiruchengode.
+1 CC to Mr.N. Manokaran, advocate sr 25891.
+1 Cc to Govt. Pleader sr 2619.
W.P.No.746 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
EV(CO)
SP(13/08/2020)

¶22

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

K.Ponnusamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ponnusamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jaganatha Spinners Rep.by Vs 1.TAMILNADU Electricity

C.K.Sashikumar Vs the Sub Registrar

Ponnammal @ Settu, Vs the Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk

Ganapathy Vs State

J.Vijayakumar Vs the District Registrar

V.Jeevan Vs the Sub Registrar