First respondent has abused the process of law by filing a civil suit.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikkal.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner being the owner of the land in T.s.Nos.161, 164, 165 and 166 in ward No.F, Block No.38 at Nehru street, Karaikkal town obtained an approved plan No.604/Kpa/98 dated 17.3.1999 from the respondents 2 and 3 for putting up a Kalyana Mandapam. In accordance with the approved plan, the petitioner had actually completed the construction of the Kalyana Mandapam even in the year 2001. The first respondent is residing at D.No.219, Church street, Karaikkal and the Kalyana Mandapam has been put up at Door No.58, Nehru Street, which is on the north east of the first respondent's property. The petitioner by sale deed dated 18.6.2001 purchased the property bearing old Door No.218 lying immediately on the north of Door No.219 owned by the first respondent and on the west of the Kalyana Mandapam put up by him.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that there is a litigation between the first respondent and vendor, the owner of the old Door No.218 and the litigation is still pending and as a power of attorney holder of the vendor, the petitioner is looking after the litigation. Enraged by the purchase of the suit property by the petitioner, the first respondent with a mala fide intention sent telegrams dated 22.10.2001 and 24.10.2001 to the respondents 2 and 3 to the effect that the Kalyana Mandapam has been put up in violation of the approved plan and requested the respondents 2 and 3 to take suitable action under the provisions of the Pondicherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1969") against the petitioner. The second respondent by letter dated 24.10.2001 replied to the first respondent that there is no violation in putting up the construction of the Kalyana Mandapam by the petitioner.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that suppressing the above facts, the first respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1859 of 2002 before this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the illegal construction put up in violation of the planning permit and rules and regulations. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 31.1.2002 by directing the third respondent to inspect the premises and dispose of the representation made by the first respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Pursuant to the order made by this Court, the third respondent sent a communication on 26.3.2002 to the first respondent informing about the action to be taken. However, the first respondent, filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2002 before the Additional District Judge, Karaikkal for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the construction alleged to be in deviation of approved plan and obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.80 of 2002 restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from giving "no objection certificate" for running the Kalyana Mandapam and also obtained an order for appointment of an Advocate commissioner in I.A.No.81 of 2002 to inspect the Kalyana Mandapam and file a report. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders so passed and also aggrieved of filing of the civil suit before the Additional District Court, Karaikkal, filed the present civil revision petition.

5. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the suit as filed before the Civil Court is not maintainable in law in view of the bar of Civil Court's jurisdiction under Section 75 of the Act, 1969. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further contended that the interim orders passed in I.A.Nos.80 and 81 of 2002 viz., appointment of Commissioner and interim order of injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from giving "no