Madras High Court
Dr.N.Maragatham vs R.Ranjith on 2 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2543 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.16556 of 2021
Dr.N.Maragatham ..Appellant
Vs
1.R.Ranjith
2.The Additional Chief Secretary,
O/o. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. The Revenue Division,
Kallakuruchi,
Kallakurichi District.
..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 16.08.2021 made in W.P.No.17033 of 2021.
For Appellant .. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.D.Veerasekharan
For Respondents .. Mrs.Kanimozhi Mathi for R1
Mr.S.Ravi Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
for R2 & R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order of learned Single
Judge dated 16 August 2021 in W.P.No.17033 of 2021 disposing of
the writ petition with certain observations against the third
respondent without issuance of notice on the writ petition. This
appeal is by the said third respondent.
2. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant and
learned advocate for the first respondent/ original writ petitioner.
3. Though both learned advocates have attempted to address
the Court on merits of the dispute between the parties inter se, we
have not entertained any of the submission for the reason that the
impugned order is passed without even issuance of notice to the third
respondent, further making certain observations if not against him, at
least qua her in paragraphs 7 and 8, which read as under:
“7. In view of the same the impugned notices are
set aside and it is also advisable that the 3rd
respondent participate in the civil suit, ensures
that the decree or otherwise is passed in the suit
comes to a finality and thereafter approach the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
revenue authorities for any relief. If pending the
suit, the 3rd respondent seek to get any relief, it
is only appropriate that the 3rd respondent files
necessary application before the civil court where
the suit is pending and that court can examine
the application and pass appropriate orders.
8. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is
disposed of with the observations as stated above
without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent,
particularly because she is a defendant in the
pending suit. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.”
4. Since in the impugned order observations are made as to
what the third respondent (present appellant) should do in the
pending proceedings, we find that it was not proper to record any
observations without hearing the third respondent. It is not only not
disputed but it is a matter of record that notice was not issued to the
third respondent. For this reason, the impugned order is quashed and
set aside.
5. Since we have not gone into the merits of the matter, the
writ petition is restored to file which may be adjudicated on merits, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
request is made by the original writ petitioner.
6. With the above observation, this writ appeal is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
02.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/30
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
O/o. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. The Revenue Division,
Kallakuruchi, Kallakurichi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2543 of 2021
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
