1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.744 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 and Caveat (MD)No.843 of 2011 and WP(MD)No.10511 of 2010 A.Mathiyaraja ...Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Theni. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam. 3.T.Rajmohan 4.R.Balamurugan ...Respondents/Respondents Prayer: The Writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10511 of 2010, dated 19.11.2010. PRAYER in WP(MD)No.10511 of 2010: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seekig for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent leading to the order in Na.Ka.NO.12488/2009/D4, dated Nil.7.2010, and quash the same and cosnequently, forbearing respondents from implementing the said impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.12488/2009/D4 dated Nil.07.2010. For Appellant : Mr.R.A.Mohanram For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, G.A. For R1 and R2 Mr.M.Ajmal Khan for R3 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/caveator. By consent, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. 2.Admittedly, in respect of the dispute involved, the appellant has already approached the Civil Court by filing suits in O.S.No.191 of 2007 and O.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni and it is stated that the cases are in advance stage of argument. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The grievance of the appellant is that certain remarks have been made by the 1st respondent in the impugned order as well as by the the learned Single Judge, who has passed the order in the Writ petition. Against which, the present Writ Appeal has been filed on the ground that such remarks may influence the Trial Court. 4.While upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the Civil Court must be directed to decide the issue independently, without being influenced by the impugned order of the 1st respondent as well as any remarks made by this Court in the Writ petition. 5.Except making the above said observation, no further orders need to be passed in the Writ Appeal. Hence, the Writ Appeal stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Theni. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam. 3.The District Munsif Court, Theni. +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.27421 +1 CC to Mr.R.A.Mohanram, Advocate, sR.No.27178 nbj W.A.(MD)No.744 of 2011 against WP(MD)No.10511 of 2010 11.08.2011 TR : 07.09.2011 : 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/