GANESAN AND ORS. Vs. MADURAI ACHARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts leading to these cases are intertwined and therefore, these cases are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The factual matrix of the cases are as follows:

(3.) Mr. S.R. Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in M.P. No. 1 of 2015 in W.P. No. 20527 of 2014 as well as the first respondent in W.P. No. 40207 of 2015, namely Madurai Achari, has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that after due enquiry, patta was granted in respect of the property in question and for the very same relief, Ganesan Achari had filed O.S. No. 10/2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam praying for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, namely Madurai Achari and his son Karunamurthy and others from causing nuisance by putting audio loud speakers and not to permit the marriage hall by placing digital banners and for a mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment by Madurai Achari in Pettai Street described in B Schedule Property within two months from the date of judgment, failing which appropriate direction may be given and also for costs of the Suit and the said Suit came to be dismissed for default on 09.06.2014 and the application filed by him in I.A. No. 489/2015 for restoration was allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/ - to be paid on or before 26.06.2015 and since it was not complied with, the said application was also came to be dismissed and suppressing the said material fact, the petitioner, namely Ganesan Achari has filed this writ petition. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in M.P. No. 1 of 2015 that the proceedings of the Block Development Officer, Elathur Panchayat dated 15.09.2015 addressed to the President/Executive Officer of the Cheyyur Panchayat would indicate that as per the proceedings of the Village Administrative Officer, Cheyyur, certain portion of the public property had been encroached by the construction of marriage hall and admittedly, the petitioner, namely Madurai Achari was not put on notice and therefore, the writ petition in W.P. No. 40207 of 2015 per se is not maintainable. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in M.P. No. 1 of 2015 that in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner in W.P. No. 40207 of 2015 as well as Cont.P. No. 943 of 2015, namely S.P. Moorthy, the counter affidavit of the Collector, Kancheepuram District in the said contempt petition, this Court may suo motu initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt and perjury and to recall the order passed in W.P. No. 20527 of 2014.