The High Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, emphasizing the necessity of following available remedies in the Trial Court for issues arising from real estate regulatory disputes.

ORDER :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

By consent of the parties, the main civil revision petition is taken up for hearing.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the plaint filed by the respondent in O.S.No.105 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruporur.

3. The respondent herein field a suit in O.S.No.105 of 2024 against the petitioner seeking permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner/Defendant-Association from illegally occupying and obstructing the usage of the common passages which are not within the undivided share of land belonging to the Defendant-Association around the schedule mentioned property namely, Amalfi Tower. The respondent also sought for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from illegally occupying and obstructing the usage of the car parks in the integrated basement area allotted to the other purchasers in the neighbouring towers as mentioned in Item No.2 of the suit schedule.

4. According to the respondent/plaintiff, 120 acres of land at Egattur Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District was originally purchased by Stonewood Constructions Private Limited during the years 2005-2006. The respondent/company had become absolute owner of the property under a scheme of amalgamation approved by High Court of Mumbai, by order dated 13.02.2009 passed in Company Petition Nos.878 and 879 of 2008. The respondent is engaged in development of real estate project, which is known as ‘House of Hiranandani, Egattur’.

5. It is stated that project is envisaged as a larger integrated development under a Common Scheme of Development by providing common roads, access, passages, facilities, club houses and other infrastructure for the benefit of all the owners/purchasers/occupants of the entire development. It is further stated that the respondent is engaged in developing the property in a staggered manner in various Sectors/Cluster/Phases. In the first sector, the respondent developed six residential towers and in the second sector, it developed seven residential towers including the tower called ‘Amalfi’.

6. The petitioner/defendant is the Association of purchasers of the Apartment in Tower called ‘Amalfi’. It is also claimed by the respondent that the Members of the Petitioner-Association were provided with all required amenities within 79 cents of undivided share of land in which the Amalfi Tower was built. It was also claimed that Members of the Petitioner- Association were allotted and demarcated about 333 car parking slots in accordance with individual agreement with each of the owners and as per the approved plan. The respondent also claims that the Members of the Petitioner-Association can exclusively utilise only their respective allotted portion of Car Park and the undivided share of the land and building in the above said 79 cents. The respondent further claimed that the Petitioner- Association illegally barricaded common areas around its tower and is preventing the usage of Car Parks allotted to other customers of the development. It is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner herein has been illegally obstructing the respondent and its other customers from accessing and using the car parks numbering about 143 allotted to neighbouring tower owners.

7. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner-Association filed a complaint in Complaint No.292/2021 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority seeking a direction to respondent to realign the number of parking slots in