THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21568 of 2011 Dated: 03.08.2011 Between: Smt. V.Suguna Devi and 3 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Principal District Court, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar and 6 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21568 of 2011 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed to prohibit the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar from proceeding with O.S.No.676 of 2010 by issuing a writ of prohibition. The writ of prohibition is sought on the ground that the 2nd respondent herein who filed O.S.No.676 of 2010 for partition and separate possession of metes and bounds of the suit schedule properties and to put him in peaceful possession of his share had played fraud on the Court by suppressing the material facts. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the suit schedule properties were the subject matter of O.S.No.1123 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and renumbered as O.S.No.293 of 1984 and ended in a compromise and followed by final decree dated 15.07.1991. Pursuant thereto, the parties were put in separate possession of their respective shares. It is also pleaded that as per the terms of compromise in O.S.No.293 of 1984, the 2nd respondent herein was allotted Item No.29 and his mother was allotted Item Nos. 18 to 22. After more than 12 years, the 2nd respondent along with his mother filed I.A.No.1186 of 2003 to set aside the final decree dated 15.07.1991 alleging unequal distribution, fraud and etc. The 6th respondent herein filed a similar application being I.A.No.1434 of 2003. Both I.A.Nos. 1186 of 2003 and 1434 of 2003 were dismissed by a common order dated 01.10.2008. Challenging the same, though CRP.No.2097 of 2008 was filed, the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 19.12.2008. The 2nd respondent filed Rev.CRP.MP.No.1984 of 2009, which was also dismissed by this Court on 23.10.2009. After conclusion of all the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.676 of 2010 relying upon certain observations made by the trial Court while dismissing I.A.No.1186 of 2003. It is contended by the petitioner that the action of the 2nd respondent in relying upon the observations made by the trial Court and suppressing the findings recorded by this Court in CRP.No.2097 of 2008 amounts to playing fraud on the Court. It is also contended that if only the said findings were extracted in the plaint, the suit would not have even been numbered. It is also contended that the plaint A and B schedule properties are the separate properties of the 1st petitioner and so far as the C suit schedule property is concerned, no amounts are available as claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, according to the writ petitioners the very initiation of the proceedings is without jurisdiction and it amounts to abuse of process of the Court besides being fraudulent. It is also contended that since the issue had attained finality, it is not open the 2nd respondent to file a fresh suit by misrepresenting the facts and playing fraud on the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments in the writ petition vehemently contended that since it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court, the court should be prohibited from proceeding further by issuing a writ of prohibition. In support of his submissions the learned counsel relied upon S. GOVINDA MENON V. UNION OF INDIA[1], KAMALABAI S.NAIK V. DHANANJAY NAIK[2] and HAMZA HAJI V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER[3]. The law is well settled that the object of prohibition should be to prevent an inferior Court/Tribunal from usurping jurisdiction which does not belong to it, but not to correct mere errors or irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction. It is also a well settled principle of law that the writ of prohibition can be issued where the defect of jurisdiction is patent on the face of the record. Where the defect of jurisdiction is not patent but depends upon the proof of the facts constituting the defect of jurisdiction or where the defect does not go to the root of its jurisdiction, the writ of prohibition cannot be maintained. The writ of prohibition is also not available where the jurisdiction was exercised irregularly or erroneously. In the instant case, the petitioners do not dispute the jurisdiction of the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar to entertain O.S.No.676 of 2010. The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the plaintiff/2nd respondent herein filed the said suit suppressing the real facts and the Court below had entertained the same without taking the necessary care. Even assuming that said allegation is correct, it amounts to erroneous or improper exercise of jurisdiction but not lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, it is always open to the petitioners to advance all these contentions before the civil Court and seek appropriate relief as provided under law. Viewed from any angle, it is not a matter for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prohibit the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar from proceeding with O.S.No.676 of 2010. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and that this shall not preclude the petitioners to raise all the contentions advanced before this court in the suit pending before the civil Court. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 03.08.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. B/o KLP [1] AIR 1967 SC 1274 [2] 1996 (3) ALD 553 [3] 2006(7) SCC 416