Disposed¶8

J.S.Jeevanandham v. P.Ganesamoorthy

Madras HC3 Feb 2025WA/1187/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ appeal Clause 15 Letters Patent; date of death entry dispute in Death Register (Palanisamy Gounder, 17.06.1984); District Collector Coimbatore proceeding 30.01.2023; RDO order cancelled; forgery criminal complaint direction; writ order 08.03.2023 in W.P.No.7068 of 2023 deferring prosecution till civil suit; modifications of 23.03.2023 and 20.04.2023 (four weeks); civil suit O.S.No.426 of 2023 V Additional District Munsif Court Coimbatore; interim order lapse; Article 226 disputed question of fact; simultaneous criminal prosecution and civil proceedings permitted; parties at liberty before competent court.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; parties left free to pursue/defend the criminal and civil proceedings simultaneously before the competent courts.

J.S.Jeevanandham Vs P.Ganesamoorthy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; parties left free to pursue/defend the criminal and civil proceedings simultaneously before the competent courts.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the intra-court appeal challenging the writ Court's order dated 08.03.2023 in W.P.No.7068 of 2023 (liberty to approach the civil forum and deferment of criminal prosecution till filing of civil suit) should be allowed or disposed of. +2 more

¶1

Ratio / Principle

The interim protection granted by the writ Court lapsed because the first respondent instituted civil suit O.S.No.426 of 2023 before the V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, and the four-week period fixed by the clarificatory order dated 20.04.2023 expired.

¶7

Key takeaways

The impugned writ order did not totally bar the institution of the criminal case pursuant to the District Collector's proceeding dated 30.01.2023; the interim orders merely kept the prosecution in abeyance till institution of the civil suit.ratio¶6
There is no bar to continuance of the criminal prosecution and the civil case simultaneously; the parties are at liberty to establish their right or defend their case, as the case may be, before the competent court of law.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam & K. Rajasekar, JJ.), Madras High Court, disposed of a Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeal (W.A.No.1187 of 2024) by J.S.Jeevanandham (R5 in the writ) against the order dated 08.03.2023 in W.P.No.7068 of 2023 sought by P.Ganesamoorthy. The writ order had treated issuance of the Death Certificate for Palanisamy Gounder as a disputed question of fact beyond Article 226 adjudication, granted liberty to approach the civil forum, and deferred the criminal prosecution (directed by the District Collector, Coimbatore by proceeding dated 30.01.2023 after cancelling the RDO's change of the date-of-death entry and restoring 17.06.1984, with a forgery complaint ordered) — initially till filing of a civil suit, then limited to four weeks by the clarificatory order of 20.04.2023. Held: with the first respondent instituting O.S.No.426 of 2023 (V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore) and the four weeks expiring, the interim protection lapsed; the writ order never totally barred the criminal case; and there is no bar to simultaneous continuance of the criminal prosecution and the civil suit. Appeal disposed of, no costs; C.M.P.No.8636 of 2024 closed.

¶1

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶8

Writ Appeal No.1187 of 2024 and

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.8636 of 2024

¶10

J.S.Jeevanandham ... Appellant / R5 Vs. 1. P.Ganesamoorthy ... R1 / Petitioner

¶11

The District Magistrate – cum District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶12

The Sub Divisional Magistrate – cum The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore District.

¶14

The Sub Registrar, Periyanaickampalayam,

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/8

¶17

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

¶18

Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

¶19

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 08.03.2023 (Corrected on 23.03.2023 and 20.04.2023) made in W.P.No.7068 of 2023.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan For R1 : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For R2 to R6 : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶23

The intra court appeal on hand has been instituted challenging the

¶24

Writ Order dated 08.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.7068 of 2023. The fifth respondent in writ proceedings is the appellant before this Court.

¶25

The first respondent Mr.P.Ganesamoorthy instituted writ

¶26

proceedings challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore dated 30.01.2023 regarding the date of death of one Mr.Palanisamy Gounder, who is the father of the first respondent

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/8

¶29

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

¶30

Mr.P.Ganesamoorthy and the maternal grandfather of the appellant.

¶31

Mr.N.Manoharan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that even as per the information provided by the first respondent Mr.P.Ganesamoorthy before the Competent Authorities, Mr.Palanisamy Gounder died on 17.06.1984. The date of death was entered as per his own request of information provided to the Competent Authorities. However, he turned around and approached the Revenue Divisional Officer for change of the date of death of Mr.Palanisamy Gounder. The Revenue Divisional Officer accepted the request of the first respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector cancelled the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and held that Mr.Palanisamy Gounder died on 17.06.1984.The original date of death of Mr.Palanisamy Gounder entered in the Death Register was confirmed by the District Collector. Thus, the Writ Petition has been instituted by the first respondent. The District Collector directed the authorities to lodge a criminal complaint for the forgery committed regarding entry of date of death in the Death Register.

¶32

The writ Court considered the issues and passed an order stating

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/8

¶35

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

¶36

that issuance of Death Certificate in respect of the deceased, father of the first respondent is a disputed fact, which is to be adjudicated before the Competent Civil Forum. Accordingly, granted liberty to the first respondent to approach the Competent Civil Court. However, by way of an interim measure, the writ Court held that the criminal prosecution initiated as against the first respondent shall be deferred till the filing of Civil Suit. The matter was again listed under the caption “for being mentioned” on 23.03.2023, paragraph No.7 was modified by the writ Court as under:

¶37

“The issue pertaining to issuance of death certificate in respect of the deceased father who is alleged to be the father of the petitioner being a disputed question of fact, this Court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate the same and the prayer sought for in this Writ petition cannot be acceded to. However the liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent civil forum and the criminal prosecution initiated as against the petitioner shall be deferred till the filing civil suit . Registry is directed to return the impugned order to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.”

¶38

Once again, the matter was listed under the caption “ for being

¶39

mentioned” and an order was passed on 20.04.2023 clarifying paragraph No.7 of the order as under:

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

4/8

¶42

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

¶43

“7. The issue pertaining to issuance of death certificate in respect of the deceased father who is alleged to be the father of the petitioner being a disputed question of fact, this Court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate the same and the prayer sought for in this Writ petition cannot be acceded to. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent civil forum and the respondents are directed to defer the criminal prosecution initiated as against the petitioner for a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders by filing Civil Suit before the competent jurisdictional Court. Registry is directed to return the impugned order to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.”

¶44

However, on both the occasions, the writ Court has clarified that the criminal prosecution as directed by the District Collector is to be kept in abeyance, till such time the civil suit has been instituted by the first respondent. However, the institution of criminal case was not totally barred in the impugned order passed in the writ petition pursuant to the proceeding of the District Collector dated 30.01.2023.

¶45

That being so, the interim order passed by the writ Court lapsed, on account of the fact that the first respondent has instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.426 of 2023 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif Court at

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

5/8

¶48

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

¶49

Coimbatore. The four weeks period granted in the subsequent clarificatory order by the writ court on 20.04.2023 also expired.

¶50

That being so, there is no bar for continuance of the criminal prosecution and also the civil case simultaneously and the parties are at liberty to establish their right or defend their case, as the case may be, before the competent court of law. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶51

(S.M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 03.02.2025

¶52

ssi Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/8

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

The District Magistrate – cum District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶58

The Sub Divisional Magistrate – cum The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore.

¶59

The Tahsildar, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore District.

¶60

The Sub Registrar, Periyanaickampalayam, Coimbatore District.

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

7/8

¶63

W.P.No.1187 of 2024

¶64

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM., J.

¶65

AND

¶66

K. RAJASEKAR., J.

¶67

ssi

¶68

W.A.No.1187 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.8636 of 2024

¶69

03.02.2025

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

8/8

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Writ Order dated 08.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.7068 of 2023 by the writ Court, holding that issuance of the Death Certificate involved a disputed question of fact not adjudicable under Article 226, granting the first respondent liberty to approach the competent civil forum, and deferring the criminal prosecution initiated against him till the filing of a civil suit; paragraph 7 subsequently modified on 23.03.2023 and clarified on 20.04.2023 limiting the deferment to four weeks.¶appeal-memo
Writ Court (intra-court appeal lies to the Division Bench) · 08.03.2023
Prior proceeding
First respondent P.Ganesamoorthy instituted writ proceedings challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore dated 30.01.2023 regarding the date of death of Palanisamy Gounder (father of the first respondent and maternal grandfather of the appellant).¶2
Prior proceeding
The Revenue Divisional Officer accepted the first respondent's request for change of the date of death of Palanisamy Gounder.¶3
Prior proceeding
On the appellant's appeal, the District Collector cancelled the RDO's order and held that Palanisamy Gounder died on 17.06.1984, confirming the original date of death entered in the Death Register.¶3
Prior proceeding
The District Collector further directed the authorities to lodge a criminal complaint for forgery committed regarding the entry of date of death in the Death Register.¶3
Prior proceeding
By order dated 08.03.2023, the writ Court treated issuance of the Death Certificate as a disputed question of fact for the civil forum, granted liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, and deferred the criminal prosecution against the first respondent till filing of a Civil Suit.¶4
Prior proceeding
On being mentioned, the matter was re-listed on 23.03.2023 and paragraph No.7 of the writ order was modified by the writ Court (modified text reproduced in the judgment).¶4
Prior proceeding
By clarificatory order dated 20.04.2023 (again on being mentioned), the writ Court limited the deferment of criminal prosecution to a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders by filing a Civil Suit.¶5
Prior proceeding
The first respondent instituted civil suit O.S.No.426 of 2023 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore; consequently the interim order of the writ Court lapsed.¶7
Prior proceeding
The four-week period granted by the clarificatory order dated 20.04.2023 also expired.¶7

J.S.Jeevanandham v. P.Ganesamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.S.Jeevanandham v. P.Ganesamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A/M Mariamman Koil, Vs M.Shanmugam

R.Gunasekaran Vs Revenue and Disaster Management Department

R.Gunasekaran Vs Revenue and Disaster Management Department

M/S.Falcon Media Group, Vs the Commissioner

P.S.R.Sathyamoorthy Vs The Managing Director

N.Chakravarathy Selvarajan Vs the Chairman