Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

S.Sekar, Vs Pandiaraj — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
S.Sekar, Vs PandiarajS.Sekar, v. Pandiaraj

Dismissed¶33

S.Sekar, v. Pandiaraj

Writ Appeal – Undertaking given by counsel before the learned single Judge

Madras HC13 Mar 2025WA(MD)/1309/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.A(MD) No.1309 of 2022, decided 13.03.2025, coram G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman JJ. (order by G.R. Swaminathan, J.). Writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent by S.Sekar (fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022, filed by Pandiaraj) against the single Judge's order dated 12.10.2022 directing him to restore a pathway/thar road he had laid in his private capacity without permission from the authority in Virudhunagar District. Held: where counsel for a respondent has given an undertaking before the learned single Judge to restore the pathway, the respondent cannot resile (do a U-turn) by filing a writ appeal; such an appeal is incompetent. Appeal dismissed, no costs; liberty granted to apply for recall of the writ order pleading non-authorisation of counsel. Keywords: undertaking by counsel, U-turn/resiling, competency of writ appeal, recall of writ order, unauthorised undertaking, thar road, pathway restoration, Virudhunagar, Clause 15 Letters Patent.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs; liberty granted to the appellant to apply for recall of the writ order dated 12.10.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 on the ground that the appellant had not authorised his counsel to give the undertaking. ¶33

Why is it important?

When an undertaking had been given before the learned single Judge by counsel for the fourth respondent, it is not open to the fourth respondent to do a U-turn thereafter and file an appeal; consequently, this appeal is incompetent. ¶33

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs; liberty granted to the appellant to apply for recall of the writ order dated 12.10.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 on the ground that the appellant had not authorised his counsel to give the undertaking.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal filed by the fourth respondent is competent when his counsel had already given an undertaking before the learned single Judge that the fourth respondent will restore the pathway as it stood earlier.

Court's answer

When an undertaking had been given before the learned single Judge by counsel for the fourth respondent, it is not open to the fourth respondent to do a U-turn thereafter and file an appeal; consequently, this appeal is incompetent.

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the incompetence of the appeal, liberty is granted to the appellant to apply for recall of the writ order on the ground that the appellant had not authorised his counsel to give any such undertaking.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal — Undertaking given by counsel before the learned single Judge — Resiling therefrom by filing an appeal is impermissible: The fourth respondent's counsel had undertaken before the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 that "the fourth respondent will restore the said pathway as it stood earlier". Holding that a litigant cannot "do a U-turn" after such an undertaking by filing a writ appeal, the Bench declared the appeal incompetent and dismissed it without costs, while granting the appellant liberty to apply for recall of the writ order dated 12.10.2022 on the ground that he had not authorised his counsel to give the undertaking. Order of the Court made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. (bench with M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.), dated 13.03.2025.

A

W.A(MD) No.1309 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 13.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

W.A(MD) No.1309 of 2022

S.Sekar ... Appellant / 4^th Respondent

Vs

1.Pandiaraj

... 1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner

2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The President, Appainayakkanpatti Panchayat, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Block Development Officer, Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents 2 to 4

/ Respondents 1 to 3

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 12.10.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 passed by this Court.

1/4

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

W.A(MD) No.1309 of 2022

For Appellants : Mr.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel For Mr.M.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.K.Prabhu for R1 : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R2 & R4 : no appearance for R3

ORDER

( Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned

counsel for R1and the learned Special Government Pleader for R2 & R4.

The first respondent herein filed W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022

for forbearing the appellant herein from laying any thar road in the petition mentioned survey numbers. It appears that the appellant in his private capacity had laid road without getting permission from the authority. In this background, the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant to restore the pathway as it stood earlier. Questioning the said order dated 12.10.2022, this writ appeal has been filed.

2/4

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

W.A(MD) No.1309 of 2022

The learned Special Government Pleader draws our attention to

Paragraph No.5 of the order passed by the learned single Judge. It reads as follows:-

“5. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent

undertakes before this Court that the fourth respondent will restore the said pathway as it stood earlier.”

When an undertaking had been given before the learned single Judge, it is not open to the fourth respondent to do a U-turn thereafter and file an appeal. This appeal is incompetent. We however grant liberty to the appellant to apply for recall of the writ order on the ground that the appellant had not authorised his counsel to give any such undertaking. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(G.R.S., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 13.03.2025

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

3/4

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

W.A(MD) No.1309 of 2022

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

rmi

To

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Block Development Officer, Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

W.A(MD) No.1309 of 2022

13.03.2025

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

4/4

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ appeal filed by the fourth respondent is competent when his counsel had already given an undertaking before the learned single Judge that the fourth respondent will restore the pathway as it stood earlier.¶33
The court held
When an undertaking had been given before the learned single Judge by counsel for the fourth respondent, it is not open to the fourth respondent to do a U-turn thereafter and file an appeal; consequently, this appeal is incompetent.ratio¶33

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶15

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.10.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 passed by this Court (learned single Judge), disposing of the writ petition by directing the appellant to restore the pathway as it stood earlier.¶25
Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (learned single Judge) · 12.10.2022
Prior proceeding
First respondent (Pandiaraj) filed W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 seeking that the appellant be forbidden from laying any thar road in the petition mentioned survey numbers.¶24
Prior proceeding
The appellant had, in his private capacity, laid the road without obtaining permission from the authority.¶25
Prior proceeding
The single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to restore the pathway as it stood earlier.¶25
Prior proceeding
Before the learned single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent (now appellant) undertook that the fourth respondent will restore the said pathway as it stood earlier.¶32

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
S.Sekar¶7
Mr.Ajmal Khan (Sr.), Mr.M.Prabhu
respondent
Pandiaraj¶9
Mr.K.Prabhu
respondent
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar¶11
Mr.K.Balasubramani
respondent
The President, Appainayakkanpatti Panchayat, Virudhunagar District¶12
respondent
The Block Development Officer, Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District¶13
Mr.K.Balasubramani

Coram

AI extract

G.R.SWAMINATHANauthor¶21
M.JOTHIRAMANmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 13 Mar 2025 · March
Registered: 1 Nov 2022
Case no.: WA(MD)/1309/2022
CNR: HCMD011059232022
Bench: G.r.swaminathan M.jothiraman
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.A(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan M.jothiraman

S.Rathna Devi Vs M.Hariharan
12 Mar 2025
S.Ratnadevi, Vs M.Hariharan
12 Mar 2025
R.S.Nagarajan, Died, 1.N.Rajesakaran Vs R.S.Gopalan
12 Mar 2025
The Sub Registrar, Vs a. Hemalatha
13 Mar 2025
Kumarasamy, Vs S.Pramila
13 Mar 2025
M. Rajendran, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
13 Mar 2025

Cite this judgement

S.Sekar, v. Pandiaraj, WA(MD)/1309/2022 (MAD), decided on 13 March 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Order dated 12.10.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 passed by this Court (learned single Judge), disposing of the writ petition by directing the appellant to restore the pathway as it stood earlier.Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (learned single Judge) · 12.10.2022
First respondent (Pandiaraj) filed W.P.(MD)No.22764 of 2022 seeking that the appellant be forbidden from laying any thar road in the petition mentioned survey numbers.
The appellant had, in his private capacity, laid the road without obtaining permission from the authority.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.JOTHIRAMAN

Parties & counsel