← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/758/2022dismissed

Senthil Kumar v. The Village Administrative Officer

2022-04-05Honourable Mrs Justice S.Ananthi (Retd.)3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. ANANTHI Senthilkumar .. Petitioner /Petitioner/ Plaintiff Vs.

1.The Village Administrative officer, Thevarkulam, Manur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Revenue Inspector, Vannikondendal Manur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Tahsildar, Sankarnkovil, Tenkasi (Presently) Manur, Manur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Revenue Divisional officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

5.The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

6.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelvlei District, 7.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep through its District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

8.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

9.The Secretary, Educational Department, Fort St. Geroge, Chennai.

10.Samuthira Panidan 11.M/s. Jeya Builders, Sai Prashanthi Apartment, 6/9, Ramalinga Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli.

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendants 1/3

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial Court to number the petition in Unnumbered IASR.No.1437 of 2022 in O.S.No.240 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N. Vignesh For R1 to R9 :

Mr. A. Kannan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed this revision to number the unnumbered IASR.No.1437 of 2022 in O.S.No.240 of 2017, on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil, which was returned stating that already I.A.No.250 of 2018 was filed and the same was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner an the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 9.

3. Earlier, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.250 of 2018 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC restraining the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property. Now, the petitioner has filed the present Interlocutory Application for the very same relief with the restricted portion.

4. Since the I.A.No.250 0f 2018 has already been dismissed and subsequently, CMA was filed and the same was also dismissed for non prosecution, the petitioner cannot file another Interlocutory Application for the same prayer. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) trp 2/3

To The Sub Judge, Sankarankovil.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-16741[F] dated 05/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.H. ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-17339[F] dated 07/04/2022 ) 05.04.2022 RD(18.04.2022) 3P 4C 3/3