Madras High Court
J.Surya vs Thillaipandi on 26 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :26.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
REV.APLC(MD)No.19 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3993 of 2022
1.J.Surya
2.S.Joseph Prabaher
3.J.Violetta ...Review Applicants/3rd Parties
Vs.
1.Thillaipandi
2.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Sub-Collector,
O/o.The Sub-Collector,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Thisayanvilai,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Uvari Police Station,
Uvari, Tirunelveli District. ...R-2 to R-5/Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
PRAYER: Review Application under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2, Section 114 of
Civil Procedure Code read with Article 226 of Constitution of India, to set
aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.3202 of 2022 on 18.02.2022 by
allowing the above review application.
For Petitioners :M/s.H.Arumugam
For R-1 :M/s.Rajiv Rutus
For R-2 to 5 :Mr.R.Manikandan,
Government Advocate (crl. Side)
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed to review the order in
W.P.(MD)No.3202 of 2022, dated 18.02.2022.
2.Heard on either side.
3.The review petitioners are third parties in the writ petition have filed
this review application to review the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.3202
of 2022.
4. The 1st respondent herein has filed the writ petition under Article
226 of Constitution of India to direct the 2 nd respondent to consider the
complaint dated 27.01.2022 given by him and to conduct enquiry under
Section 147 of Cr.P.C..
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.With regard to the said dispute, a suit is pending between these two
parties in O.S.No.51 of 2021 for bare injunction, on the file of the learned
District Munsif, Radhapuram.
6.The 1st respondent/writ petitioner had filed writ with counter claim
and claimed rights one half rights in the well and also for permanent
injunction. He has also filed a petition in I.A.No.3 of 2021 for temporary
injunction to not to disturb for doing cultivation and also earning the coconut
tress. Without disclosing the counter claim and I.A.No.3 of 2021 this writ
petitioner has filed writ. Since the suit is pending between the parties and
the rights of the parties to be decided in the suit only.
7.It is purely a civil rights. Only after deciding the rights of the parties
the writ petitioner can derive water from the well.
8.The paragraph Nos.34 & 36 of the Judgment reported in (2008) 12
Supreme Court Cases 481, K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India
Limited and Others, are extracted hereunder:
“34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 32 and all the High Court under Article 226 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and
discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are
issued for doing substantial justice. It is therefore, of
utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ
court must come with clean hands, put forward all the
facts before the count without concealing or suppressing
anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no
candid disclosure of relevant and material facts before
the Court without concealing or suppressing anything
and an appropriate relief. If there is no candid
disclosure of relevant material facts or the petitioner is
guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be
dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits
of the claim.
36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course.
While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would
certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who
invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant
makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or
attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the
action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into
the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to
your application because of what you have done”. The
rule has been evolved in the large public interest to deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court
by deceiving it”.
9.In view of the foregoing reasons, this Review Application is allowed.
The learned District Munsif, Radhapuram is directed to dispose the suit in
O.S.No.51 of 2021, within a period of three months from the date of receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of copy of the order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 26.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
ksa
To
The District Munsif Court,
Radhapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
Order made in
REV.APLC(MD)No.19 of 2022
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
