IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2070 of 2010 1. PRABHU NARAIN HATHI S/O LATE SUNDAR HATHI R/O MOH- GANDHI CHOWK, MADHUBANI WARD NO. - 9, P.S AND DISTT- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 3. THE D.C.L.R. MADHUBANI 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MADHUBANI 6. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MADHUBANI 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER/BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAHIKA, MADHUBANI 8. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PRISHAD, MADHUBANI ----------- 2/ 26/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Madhubani Nagar Parishad. The petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the Madhubani Nagar Parishad seeking to intrude into his lands upon which he has constructed his residential house wrongly declaring it as an encroachment. From his representation at Annexure-4 to the writ application it is apparent that he has already filed Title Suit No.32 of 2000 against the State and the Madhubani Nagar Parishad. The petitioner having elected first the remedy of a Title suit before institution of the present writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner finds it difficult to persuade the Court that the petitioner can simultaneously pursue the remedies both of a suit and a writ petition between the same parties with regard to the same subject-matter. The impermissibility to pursue two remedies simultaneously in respect of the same cause of action is explained in (1977) 1 SCC 1 (Jai Singh v. Union of 2 India) at paragraph 4 as follows:- 4. … It has also been brought to our notice that after the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, the appellant has filed a suit, in which he has agitated the same question which is the subject-matter of the writ petition. In our opinion, the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.” The Court therefore declines to entertain the writ application only on that ground. If the petitioner files any application seeking injunction in Title Suit No.32 of 2000 before the competent court which is required to be adjudicated on its own merits in accordance with law when the present order cannot be deemed or construed as any observation or opinion of the Court on the merits of the claim with regard to the prayer for injunction. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)