O R D E R

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Prohibition forbearing the

1st respondent from proceeding with the complaint of the 2nd respondent dated 13.08.2022.

2. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has projected the petitioner's case to the following effect:

(i) That there are two documents which had already been registered before the concerned Registering Authority viz., Document Nos.3106/2007 and 2753/2015 on the file of the Uthangarai Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri District.

(ii) In respect of these documents, the 2nd respondent had given a complaint to the 1st respondent District Registrar under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 to conduct an enquiry and to cancel those documents as fraudulent or forged documents.

(iii) Entertaining the said complaint, the 1st respondent had issued a notice on 10.10.2022 challenging the said notice seeking a writ of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from entertaining such application or complaint from the 2nd respondent to enquire the matter under Section 77- A of the Act, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition with the aforestated prayer.

3. He would also submit that, the reason for moving the present writ petition seeking writ of prohibition against the 1st respondent is that, primarily in respect of the documents i.e. Document Nos.3106/2007 and 2753/2015 already a proceedings had been issued by the 1st respondent viz., the District Registrar, Krishnagiri by order dated 24.02.2016 whereunder the District Registrar had directed the private respondents, who set the law in motion to file the complaint against those documents, to approach the Civil Court to get their relief as no orders could be passed by the 1st respondent.

4. He has also pointed out that, subsequently in respect of Document No.3106/2007 along with Document No.2753/2015 as well as Document Nos.625/2001, 678/2001 and 2116/2006 yet another complaint had been given by private parties before the 1st respondent who having enquired the matter had passed an order on 24.05.2019 where also the findings given by the 1st respondent was that, as per the notification or circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, it cannot be declared that those documents are fraudulent documents as such a power to cancel those documents as fraudulent is not vested with the District Registrar concerned, the parties can be relegated to go before the Civil Court to establish their right.

5. The learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court about the subsequent order passed by the I.G. of Registration dated 13.08.2021 where Document No.678/2001 was dealt with under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act where also a same view had been expressed by the I.G. of Registration and ultimately the District Registrar had passed an order stating that, the veracity of the document which was in question whether it is a forged document or fraudulent document can be gone into only by the Civil Court, therefore the parties can be relegated to go before the Civil Court and there was no ground to take action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, hence accordingly the said order was passed on

13.08.2021 by the District Registrar concerned.

6. As against which appeal had been filed by the private parties that appeal also is pending before the I.G. of Registration.

7. When that being the position, already three proceedings have been issued by the District Registrar concerned and against the last such order passed by the District Registrar, when appeal was filed by the aggrieved party, that appeal also having been entertained, which was pending before the I.G. of Registration, at this juncture once again yet another complaint has come in respect of the very same documents against the petitioner before the 1st respondent and he, instead of rejecting the said complaint at the threshold, having entertained the same, has issued a summon, which is impugned herein, to the petitioner to appe