Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1487
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
M. Bazeer Ahamed
Versus
District Collector & Others
W.P.No.11930 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on : 06-05-2008
For the Petitioner:V. Bharathidasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: D. Geetha, Additional Government Pleader.
A writ petition seeking the same relief as a pending civil suit is not permissible, but the court may direct expeditious disposal of the civil suit to address specific concerns.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Civil Suit - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking the same relief as a pending civil suit, but directed the civil court to dispose of the suit within two months to prevent forcible dispossession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, along with an interim injunction application to protect his possession. The interim injunction application was dismissed, and the original suit is pending for trial. The petitioner feared highhanded dispossession by government officials.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the proposition that a writ petition seeking the same relief as a pending civil suit is not permissible. However, considering the petitioner's apprehension of forcible dispossession, the court directed the civil court to dispose of the suit within two months and instructed the respondents to adhere to the civil court's direction.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's attempt to seek the same relief through a writ petition while a civil suit was pending, and the apprehension of forcible dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a writ petition seeking the same relief as a pending civil suit is not permissible. However, it also recognized the petitioner's concerns and directed the expeditious disposal of the civil suit to prevent forcible dispossession.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the civil court was directed to dispose of the suit within two months to prevent forcible dispossession.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner filed O.S.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Mannargudi for declaration and for injunction and he also filed interim injunction application so as to protect his possession, but it was dismissed. The said original suit is now pending for trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities being the Government Officials might with the help of police highhandedly dispossess him.
3. No doubt the learned Additional Government Pleader would effectively and lawfully put forth the proposition to the effect that parallel remedy is barred once the civil suit is pending; For the same relief writ petition would not lie. After facing debacle in the interlocutory application for injunction, the petitioner cannot try to get the same relief by filing writ petition.
4. There is no quarrel with the proposition that once civil suit is pending there cannot be a writ petition seeking the same relief. However, one of the plaintiffs happened to be the petitioner in this writ petition apprehends that there would be forcible dispossession. Upholding the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader, I would like to direct the learned Sub Judge, Mannargudi to dispose of the suit O.S.No.52 of 2007 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it goes without saying that the respondents should adhere to the law and abide by the civil Courts direction. The writ petition is dismissed with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
