Allowed¶49

Prabu v. Hamsa

Madras HC7 Jul 2025WMP/24893/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; N. Anand Venkatesh J.; WMP No. 24893 of 2025 / WP No. 12146 of 2025; order dated 07-07-2025; recall of order dated 04.04.2025; survey with police aid; Tahsildar Mettur Taluk Salem District; lis pendens; subsequent purchaser; Sale deed dated 04.10.2021; OS No.65 of 2020 District Munsif Court Mettur; permanent injunction suit; withdrawal of suit 25.06.2025; non-disclosure of material facts; ground to recall writ order; revenue survey; Kolathur Police Station; Hamsa; Prabu; Ramani; Karthik.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Miscellaneous Petition is allowed; the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in WP No.12146 of 2025 is recalled, and the parties are left open to work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court. ¶49

Prabu Vs Hamsa — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in WP No.12146 of 2025 should be recalled on the ground that the pendency of suit OS No.65 of 2020, a material fact, was never brought to the notice of the Court when the writ petition was disposed of. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The pendency of suit OS No.65 of 2020 filed by the vendors of the writ petitioner was never drawn to the notice of this Court; non-disclosure of material facts is by itself a ground to recall the order passed in the writ petition.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Where the parties are agitating before a Civil Court and the purchaser is a subsequent purchaser who came into the picture only in 2021 by virtue of a Sale deed dated 04.10.2021, the transaction itself is subject to lis pendens.

¶42

Key takeaways

In view of lis pendens, the revenue authorities cannot at this stage act upon the application submitted by the writ petitioner and conduct the survey.ratio¶42
This Court will not go into the inter se rights between the parties; what is important is that the Court must be made aware of all the facts in a case.ratio¶44
The parties are left open to work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court, and the order passed in WP No.12146 of 2025 dated 04.04.2025 is recalled.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recall of writ order - WMP No. 24893 of 2025 filed by respondents 3 to 5 in W.P. No.12146 of 2025 to recall the order dated 04.04.2025 whereby the Tahsildar was directed to act upon the writ petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2025 and conduct survey of the subject property with police aid - ground: suit OS No.65 of 2020 (District Munsif Court, Mettur), filed by the vendors of the writ petitioner against the recall petitioners, was pending (trial stage; IA part heard) and was never disclosed to the Court - writ petitioner a subsequent purchaser under Sale deed dated 04.10.2021, transaction subject to lis pendens - held: non-disclosure of material facts is by itself a ground to recall the order; revenue authorities cannot act on the application or conduct survey at this stage; Court will not go into inter se rights - WMP allowed; order recalled; parties left to work out remedies before the competent Civil Court.

¶1

WMP No. 24893 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-07-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

WMP No. 24893 of 2025 AND

¶7

WP NO. 12146 OF 2025

¶8

1. Prabu

¶9

S/o.Ponnusamy, Lakkampatti Village, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶10

2. Ramani

¶11

S/o.Ponnusamy, Lakkampatti Village, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶12

3. Karthik

¶13

S/o.Ramani, Lakkampatti Village, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

Petitioner(s)

1. Hamsa

W/o.Chandrasekaran, Perumalkovilnatham, Chinnathanda Post, Lakkampaatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶18

2.The Tahsildar

¶19

Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶20

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

¶21

WMP No. 24893 of 2025

¶22

3.The Inspector Of Police Kolathur Police Station, Salem District.

¶23

Respondent(s)

¶24

PRAYER

¶25

Writ Miscellaneous petition filed to recall the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in

¶26

W.P. No.12146 of 2025 .

¶27

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Udhayakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy for R1 Ms.P.Aishwarya, Government Advocate for R2 Mr.V.Meganathan Governemtn Advocate [Crl. Side] for R3

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Writ Miscellaneous petition has been filed to recall the order passed in WP No.12146 of 2025 dated 04.04.2025.

¶30

The 1st respondent / writ petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction to the authorities to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 23.01.2025 and to survey the subject property with police aid.

¶31

The above writ petition was disposed of by an order dated

¶32

04.04.2025 with a direction to the Tahsildar to act upon the application and to

¶33

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

¶34

WMP No. 24893 of 2025

¶35

conduct the survey.

¶36

This petition to recall the order passed in the writ petition has been filed by the respondents 3 to 5 in the original writ petition on the ground that already a suit is pending in OS No.65 of 2020 before the District Munsif Court, Mettur, which was filed by the vendors of the writ petitioners against the petitioners in this recall petition and the same is pending.

¶37

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the property and that he was not aware of the suit that was filed by the vendors. That apart, the suit was filed only for the relief of permanent injunction.

¶38

Heard Mr.R.Udhayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for 1st repsondent, Ms.P.Aishwarya,, learned Government Advocate for 2nd respondent and Mr.V.Meganathan, learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] for 3rd respondent.

¶39

In the considered view of this Court, the suit was filed by the vendors in OS No.65 of 2020 and it is said to be pending before the concerned court. The same is evident from the e-court proceedings, which shows that the main suit is in the trial stage and a case is pending for hearing of an IA, which is in the part heard stage.

¶40

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

¶41

WMP No. 24893 of 2025

¶42

The above fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. If ultimately, the parties are agitating before a Civil Court and the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who came into the picture only in the year 2021 by virtue of a Sale deed dated 04.10.2021, the transaction itself is subject to lis penden s. In view of the same, the revenue authorities cannot at this stage act upon the application submitted by the writ petitioner and conduct the survey. It is informed that till date no survey has been conducted.

¶43

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the suit itself came to be withdrawn on 25.06.2025.

¶44

It is quite apparent that the notice of this Court was never drawn to the pending suit that was filed by the vendors of the writ petitioner. This Court will not go into the inter se rights between the parties. What is important is that this Court must be made aware of all the facts in a case. If material facts are not informed to this Court, that by itself is a ground to recall the order passed in the writ petition.

¶45

In view of the above, it is left open to the parties to work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court and the order passed in the writ petition in WP No.12146 of 2025 dated 04.04.2025 is hereby recalled,

¶46

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

¶47

WMP No. 24893 of 2025

¶48

12.

¶49