Zahida Parveen Vs the Sub Registrar

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the refusal check slip dated 07.03.2025 in RFL /Virugambakkam/ Book 2/ 1 issued by the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to register and release the sale deed dated 14.02.2025 to the petitioners.

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Arvind Subramaniam Senior Counsel for Mr.Sheik Mohammed Rafiq

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P. No.17281 of 2025

¶20

For Respondent(s) : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified

¶23

Mandamus challenging the refusal check slip dated 07.03.2025.

¶24

2. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special

¶25

Government Pleader for respondent that the writ petition ought not be entertained and that it would amount to abuse of process of Court. He would submit that petitioner had earlier challenged the impugned order before this Court in W.P.No.8696 of 2025 and had withdrawn the same after finding that the

¶26

Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The relevant portions of the order is extracted below:

¶27

“When this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition.

¶28

2. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶29

2.1. Learned Special Government Pleader for respondent would further

¶30

submit that petitioner having withdrawn the aforesaid writ petition after finding

¶31

that the Court was not inclined to entertain the same has filed the present writ

¶32

2/4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P. No.17281 of 2025

¶35

petition challenging the very same check slip and would therefore submit that the present writ petition ought not be entertained.

¶36

3. This Court finds that there is merit in the submissions made by the

¶37

learned Special Government Pleader for respondent. The writ petition is dismissed in view of the fact that there is no explanation put forth by the petitioners for filing the present writ petition after the earlier writ petition challenging the very same refusal slip was withdrawn. This is abuse of process of this Court, hence this Court is imposing a cost of Rs.5,000, to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. Consequently, the impleading petition in W.M.P. No.25883 of 2025 is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

11.08.2025

¶39

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶40

To: The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Arcot Road, Lambert Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai-083.

¶41

3/4

¶42

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

¶43

W.P. No.17281 of 2025