Madras High Court
V.Surya @ Udayasuriyan vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 17 May, 2018
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.05.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos.14560 & 14563 of 2019
and W.M.P.Nos.14539, 14541 &14563 of 2019
V.Surya @ Udayasuriyan ...Petitioner in
W.P.No.14560/2019
K.Rani ...Petitioner in
W.P.No.14563/2019
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
2. The Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam Division,
MTB Building Anna Salai,
Chennai 600035. ... Respondents in both
petitions
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in
any manner evicting or dispossessing the petitioners from the premises at
No.6, Nandhi Loop Street, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035,
expect under due process of law.
For Petitioners in both petitions : Ms.R.Revathy
For Respondents in both petitions : Mr.R.Bharathkumar
TNHB for R1 & R2
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
COMMON ORDER
A suit in O.S.No.1111 of 2019 before the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai had been filed by the very same writ petitioners in these writ petitions.
2. The relief sought for in the suit is for an injunction restraining the defendants therein namely Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property insofar as the first plaintiff was concerned at Old No.22A, New No.6, Nandhi Loop Street, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam Chennai 600 035. The premises now involved is also at New No.6, Nandhi Loop Street, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam Chennai 600 035. It is clarified that the same premises is the subject matter of the suit as well as the writ petitions. This Court cannot entertain the writ petitions with the same subject matter of the Suit in O.S.No.1111 of 2019.
3. Consequently, I find that it is a clear case of re-adjudicating the same issue before two separate forums. This practice of readjudication has been very seriously commented upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the following decisions of the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Honourable Supreme Court, wherein strong views had been expressed on the point of abuse of process of Court through re-litigations.
4. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 1 (T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal), the father had contested the eviction proceedings, lost it, appealed against it, lost again, moved a revision, suffered rejection of the revision petition and after that, his son re-litigated by filing a suit seeking that the eviction order has been obtained by fraud and collusion. In the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court had stated as follows:-
“2. Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes a decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive. ..”
5. In 1998-3-SCC-573 (K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi), the Honourable Supreme Court had stated as follows:-
“ 44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is re litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to http://www.judis.nic.in 4 be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the court's discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding.”
6. The same dictum and preposition of law had been reiterated with much advantage by this Court in 2005 4 LW 206 (The Member Concern Department of Post, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Vs. Annapoorni and others), which is a case where the property of the Respondents in the civil revision petition had been acquired by the Postal Department for construction of a Post Office and a Postal Department Administration Block. Numerous litigations were filed by the wife and the family members of the land owner entwining the Postal Department in a number of litigations, which had been filed with the purpose of insisting reconveyance of land or getting more rent or to just keep the litigation alive. In such circumstances also, this court affirmed that relitigation at various forums with respect to the same subject matter http://www.judis.nic.in 5 would amount to abuse of process of court and law.
7. In the light of the above, I am not inclined to give relief sought in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
17.05.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking vji / sk To
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam Division, MTB Building Anna Salai, Chennai 600035.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.,J vji / sk W.P.No.14560 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.14539, 14541 &14563 of 2019 17.05.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in