[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association vs Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited on 26 February, 2026
2026:MHC:832
C.R.P.No.3776 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.3776 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.29189 of 2025
Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association
Rep. by its Secretary
House of Hiranandani
5/63, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Egattur Village,
Chengalpattu District – 600 130 ... Petitioner
vs.
Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited
Rep. by its Manager (Legal)
Having its Registered Office at
Olympia, 2nd Floor, Central Avenue,
Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076
And its Tamil Nadu Regional Office at
5/63, Old Mahabalipuram Road,
Egattur Village, Thalambur Post,
Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu – 600 130 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint and further proceedings in
O.S.No.105 of 2024 filed by the respondent, on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Thiruporur.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
C.R.P.No.3776 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.Krishna Ravindran
ORDER
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
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 accordance with approved numbers and at locations as per the DTCP
approval. The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondent to provide
10% of the parking space towards allotment of visitors car parking in
accordance with the Tamil Nadu Combined Development Building Rules
2019. The complaint of the petitioner was disposed of by Tamil Nadu Real
Estate Regulatory Authority, by order dated 21.12.2022 by directing the
respondent to ensure full compliance as per the plan approved by the
Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority as far as allotment of car parking
slot of allottees as well as visitors car parking.
8. It was asserted by the respondent in the plaint that car parking for
the owners and visitors car parking were allotted as per the approved plan.
Since the Members of the Petitioner-Association obstructed usage of car
parks, allotted to other purchasers in the neighbouring towers and illegally
obstructed the usage of the common passage, which are not within the
undivided share of land belonging to Petitioner-Association and hence, the
above mentioned suit was filed seeking relief as stated supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
9. After receipt of the suit summon, the petitioner herein filed instant
civil revision petition seeking to strike off the plaint.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the instant plaint has been preferred by the respondent only to
circumvent the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, dated 21.12.2022, wherein the respondent was directed to comply
with the provision of access to internal roads strictly as per the approved
plan and to ensure the allotment of car parking slots to the allottees as well
as visitors as per the plan approved by Mamallapuram Local Planning
Authority. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit is solely aimed
at nullifying the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory
Authority and therefore, the prayer sought for in the suit is barred by Section
79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It is also
stated that the respondent suppressed the pendency of the execution petition
filed by the petitioner in E.P.No.23 of 2023 on the file of jurisdictional
District Court for execution of order passed by Tamil Nadu Real Estate
Regulatory Authority. The learned counsel further submitted that the
respondent indulged in illegal construction of new towers in the location of
clubhouse for Phrase-II based on the DTCP Approval dated 19.11.2020 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
the same was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition and the same
was dismissed. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by
quashing the DTCP Approval dated 19.11.2020 with liberty to the
respondent to approach the owners/allottees of flats in respect of seven
towers including Amalfi for the purpose of their consent to alter the
clubhouse. The learned counsel further submitted that the present suit filed
by the respondent is to circumvent the order passed in the writ appeal and
the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the allotment of car park was done as per the approved
plan by the Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority and absolutely, there is
no violation from the approved plan. Hence, according to the learned
counsel for the respondent, the direction issued by the Tamil Nadu Real
Estate Regulatory Authority has been followed in its letter and spirit. The
learned counsel further submitted that if the present suit is barred under any
law, the petitioner has got effective remedy of invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure before the Trial Court and present revision filed
by the petitioner by invoking supervisory jurisdiction is not maintainable. In
support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
on the judgment of the Apex Court in P.Suresh vs. D.Kalaivani and others
reported in 2026 INSC 121.
12. It is not in dispute that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory
Authority in the order stated above, directed the respondent to adhere to the
approved plan by Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority while allotting
car parking slots to the purchasers and the visitors. In the plaint, it was
asserted by the respondent that the allotment of car parking to owners and
visitors were done only in accordance with the approved plan. Whether the
allotment made by the respondent in favour of the purchasers of the
apartments/visitors/visitors park are in accordance with the approved plan or
not is a disputed question of fact which requires evidence. The same cannot
be decided by this Court based on the pleadings of the parties.
13. The respondent in his pleadings asserted that the allotment of car
parks to purchasers of the apartments and also visitors car park were made in
accordance with the approved plan and the petitioners are attempting to
obstruct usage of car parks allotted to other purchasers and therefore, the
instant suit has been filed. On the other hand, the petitioner in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
Memorandum of Grounds of this revision asserted that the respondent
violated the approved plan and allotted car parks and very filing of the suit is
to circumvent the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory
Authority. The rival claims made by the parties cannot be decided without
evidence. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the filing of the very suit is an attempt to circumvent
the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot
be decided at this stage.
14. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that when issue was decided by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, filing a suit to circumvent the order passed by the
Statutory Authority is barred by Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016. If it is the case of the petitioner that the
present plaint is barred by Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, the petitioner has got effective remedy of filing an
application seeking rejection of the plaint before the Trial Court itself by
invoking Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead of
availing the remedy available before the Trial Court, the petitioner is not
entitled to rush to this Court by invoking supervisory jurisdiction, in view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
the law settled by the Apex Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal
Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society
and others reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 case.
15. In the above mentioned case law, the Apex Court categorically
held that availability of alternative remedy before the regular Civil Court is a
near total bar for this Court to exercise the supervisory power under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The above said decision was followed by
the Apex Court in P.Suresh vs. D.Kalaivani and others reported in 2026
INSC 121. The relevant observation of the Apex Court reads as follows:-
“9. From the aforesaid discussion, it would logically
follow that the High Court would not only discourage but desist
from exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution in respect of a challenge for which a separate,
distinct, and specific remedy or statutory provision is available
under the statute concerned. Availability of an alternative civil
remedy and/or under the CPC shall be treated as complete and
near total bar on the High Court to venture to invoke and
exercise its power available under Article 227 of the
Constitution, except where exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
becomes absolutely necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
10. For all the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this
court is of the view that High Court committed a manifest error
in exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to
strike down the plaint. It ought to have asked the defendant to
take recourse to, in accordance with law, when specific
provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the
nature of Order VII Rule 11. The impugned judgment and order
of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside.”
16. In view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the above
mentioned case laws, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory
power to strike off the plaint. However, it is open to the petitioner to file
appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint,
if so advised.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the judgment
passed in writ appeal in W.A.No.3328 of 2023, submitted that the present
suit is barred by res judicata. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata or
not cannot be decided at this stage, without considering the pleadings of the
parties in the earlier proceedings. It is always open to the petitioner to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
produce the pleadings of the parties and judgment rendered in the earlier
proceedings before the Trial Court and convince the said Court that the
present prayer is barred by res judicata.
18. In view of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition
stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for
rejection of the plaint before the Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, the
connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.02.2026
Index :Yes
Speaking order :Yes
Neutral Citation :Yes
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruporur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
Pre-delivery order made in
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 04:26:04 pm )
