Dr.K.Rayar (Party-In-Person), v. B.Mageshwari,

2026:MHC:1283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER And CMP.Nos.8001 & 8002 of 2026 Dr.K.Rayar ...Appellant Vs.

1.B.Mageshwari 2.K.Suganthi 3.R.Sumithra 4.D.Bhuvaneshwari 5.G.Thamilarasi 6.S.Rosi Little Flower 7.E.Bhavani 8.D.Sarala 9.N.Dhanalakshmi 10.K.Vijayalakshmi 11.K.Nirmala 12.A.Ramaraj 13.V.Sathish Kumar 14.D.Ranjith Kumar 15.M.Monisha 16.C.Jerald Mery 17.A.Revathy 1/5

18.Dr.K.Ponmudi 19.K.Dhanraj 20.M.Dhanarajan 21.R.S.Sampathkumar 22.M.Pandurangan 23.M.S.Natarajan 24.V.Karunamoorthy 25.M.R.Sheriff 26.S.Kanthavel

...Respondents

PRAYER : The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 13.06.2023 order in W.P.No.9083 of 2023, WMP.Nos.9220 & 9221 of 2023 and allow this present Writ Appeal. For Appellant : Dr.K.Rayar (Party-in-Person) For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh for R1 to R17 Mrs.R.Poornima for R19

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing in view of the fact that the petitioner is appearing in person.

2. The petitioner appearing in person would submit that the Writ Petitions are filed based on the National Mega Lok Adalat award passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.

2/5

3. The learned Single Judge considered the fact that the award was passed in open Court proceeding and all the parties have singed the award, including the petitioner who was arrayed as an accused. The petitioner also paid some amount and had given assurance that the balance amount will be paid within the timeline as stated in the award.

4. However, he would submit that his signature was obtained by coercion at the instance of some persons including former Minister.

5. The learned Single Judge considered the facts and found no merits to establish the allegations raised by the petitioner in all the Writ Petitions. Further the Writ Court confirmed that the execution proceedings filed for recovery of dues are maintainable.

6. May that as it be, it is always between the parties to adjudicate the mater in the manner known to law. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case since the dispute is still pending between the parties and the execution petition filed is also pending. In view of the said factum this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the writ order under challenge in the present intra-Court appeal. However, the petitioner is at liberty to defend his case before the appropriate forum in execution proceedings in the manner known to law.

3/5

7. With the above observation, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S., J.) (K.S., J.) 24.03.2026 dsa Index :Yes/No :Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 4/5

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

and K.SURENDER, J.

dsa 24.03.2026 5/5