SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
R. Sriram – Appellant
Versus
R. Swarna & Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 242 of 2022
Decided on : 14-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :K. Thiruvengadam, Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Issued to competent authority - Writ appeal a challenge is made to order passed - A perusal of impugned order shows that a direction was issued to competent authority namely Sub-Registrar to cause notice on writ petitioner/non-appellant as well as appellant over subject-property to conduct a detailed enquiry and pass orders on merits after giving them an opportunity of hearing to both of them – Held, Appellant and perused materials available on record - Even if plea raised by appellant is accepted he has to be relegated to concerned authority and if we look at direction given in impugned order it is nothing but to direct competent authority to hear appellant and writ petitioner/non-appellant and decide matter - Therefore court do not find any error in order passed by Single Judge - Writ appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.21180 of 2018 on the file of this Court.)

1. By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 05.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.21180 of 20218, whereby the writ petition filed by the non-appellant was disposed of.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a direction was issued to the competent authority, namely the Sub-Registrar, Veppanapalli, Krishnagiri Taluk to cause notice on the writ petitioner/non-appellant as well as the appellant over the subject-property; to conduct a detailed enquiry; and, pass orders on merits, after giving them an opportunity of hearing to both of them.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the writ petitioner/non-appellant was having remedy, but without exhausting that remedy, the writ petition has been filed and therefore, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

5. Even if the plea raised by the appellant is accepted, he has to be relegated to the concerned authority and if we look at the direction given in the impugned order, it is nothing but to direct the competent authority to hear the appellant and the writ petitioner/non-appellant and decide the matter. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1767 of 2022 is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top