CRP(NPD).Nos.1667, 1668 and 1670 of

2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.11.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P

(NPD).Nos.1667, 1668 & 1670 of 2023

and

CMP.Nos.10875

, 10879 & 10881

of 2023

and CMP.Nos.19209, 19339 and 19340 of 2023

1. G.Nalini

2. B.Govindaraj

3. G.Dineshkumar

4. M.Sakthivel

….

Petitioners in all petitions

-Vs-

1. P.Soundararajan

2. V.Umapathy

3. S.Sureshkumar

4. S.Thanumalaiyan

5. R.Ramesh

6. B.Hemamaalini

7. P.Sujatha

8. P.Soundararajan

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD).Nos.1667, 1668 and 1670 of

2023

9. S.Pandurangan

10. P.Swaminathan

11. S.Ponni

12. S.Aravindan

13. K.Annadurai

14. P.Chandrasan

15. A.Srinivasan

16. M.Prasath

17. A.Arulmozhi

18. M.Rajashekaran

19. M.Rajashekaran

20. T.Ganesan

21. S.Govindarajan

22. S.Vijayalakshmi

23. M/s.RVS Developers Pvt Ltd

Rep by Director Mr.Senthilkumar …. Respondents in all petitions

Common Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to call for the records pertaining to the orders

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD).Nos.1667, 1668 and 1670 of

2023

regarding maintainability vide the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 in

unnumbered EA SR Nos.76, 77 & 78 of 2023 (as a common in EA SR

No.76 to 78 of 2023) against the common order passed in E.P.Nos.49 to 70

of 2021 (Common order dated 10.02.2022) against the orders in CCPs 108

of 2019 & CCP Nos.273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 292, 320, 321, 322, 323,

324, 325, 326, 337, 338, 339, 340 of 2019, CCP Nos.4, 6, 13 of 2020 on

the file of the learned Adjudication Officer, Tamil Nadu Real Estate

Regulation Authority, Chennai, set aside the same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.R.Selvakumar

(in all petitions)

For R1 to R22 : MrV.RajeshBabu

(in all petitions)

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the revision petitioners has no logus standi to

prefer these Civil Revision Petitions. Further, he relied on the proposition as

per ratio laid down in the appeal is provided under the Act, the aggrieved

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD).Nos.1667, 1668 and 1670 of

2023

party should exhaust the said remedy by filing an appeal before the

Appellate Fourm and not by invoking under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondents also

relied as per Section 43(5) Tamil Nadu Real Estate Act, it is settled

proposition of law, any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or

order made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act

may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over

the matter

3. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners

submitted that during 3rd party to the proceedings, the petitioners have

rightly approched this Court and the Civil Revision Petition as such is

maintainable.

4. On seeing the fact that authority relied on by the learned counsel

for the respondents as well as the provisions, if any 3rd party suit, the

parties can raise all the grounds available to them under law before the

Appellate Forum as per manner known to law.

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD).Nos.1667, 1668 and 1670 of

2023

5. In view of the above, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of /

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

However, liberty is granted to the revision petitioners to workout