Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order under Section, 69(1) of the Transfer of Property Act and in W.P.M.P.No.5769 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for an interim injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from in any way bringing the property situated at Old D.No.57, New No.126, Panchaliamman Koil Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106 to sale on 28.2.2006 or any other subsequent dates. 2. The petitioner's mother, along with 2 others, had borrowed a sum of Rs.14 lakhs from the 2nd respondent in the year 1997. Out of the said sum of Rs.14 lakhs, the petitioner had paid only Rs.1 lakh as on date. The amount due from the petitioner is Rs.96,32,615.60 p. Earlier, every time, when a notice for auction was issued to him for payment of the defaulted amount on 8.1.2002, 16.4.2002, 15.6.2002, 7.10.2002, 30.10.2003 and finally on 28.2.2006, after receipt of the notices, the petitioner had filed O.S. Current Tamil Nadu Cases Nos.85/2002 (subsequently withdrawn), 164/2002, 1372/2002, 1772/2002, 2047/2002, 3110/2002 and 5193/2002 and all the suits are pending on file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 69(1) and (3) of the Transfer of Property Act filed before this Court, interim orders have been granted. That apart, according to the learned counsel, no notice has been given as contemplated under the Act prior to the auction. 4. But, according to the learned counsel for 2nd respondent a number of notices have been issued right from 8.1.2002 and after every notice, a suit has been filed by the petitioner and subsequently, some of the suits have been withdrawn, as stated above. That apart, learned counsel would contend that under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Order 34, Rules 7 & 8 C.P.C., the petitioner has got an alternate remedy to file a suit for redemption. According to the learned counsel, without exhausting the remedy available, the petitioner has filed the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also relied on the judgment rendered in M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Company, AIR 1995 SC 2372, to contend that the petitioner is not entitled for an injunction. 5. According to the learned counsel, without exhausting the remedy available, the petitioner has filed the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also relied on the judgment rendered in M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Company, AIR 1995 SC 2372, to contend that the petitioner is not entitled for an injunction. 5. Admittedly, the sum of Rs.14 lakhs has been parted in 1997 and the balance due form the petitioner is Rs.96,32,615.60p. But, the petitioner has so far paid only Rs.1 lakh. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has not disclosed either the suits filed by him or the auction notices previously issued by the 2nd respondent and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. That apart, even with regard to the amount due to the 2nd respondent, false statement has been made by the petitioner and the transaction is pending from 1997. As per the judgment the Honourable Supreme Courts rendered in Harminder Singh v. Union India, AIR 1986 SC 1527 , if the provisions of any Act are under challenge, they are valid, till the same is set aside. That apart, after borrowing a sum Rs.14 lakhs in 1997, the petitioner has been evading payment for the past 9 years, on one pretext or the other. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for an order of interim injunction and the W.P.M.P. is dismissed.