Judgment :- The petitioner filed a curious application before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, seeking for registration of the death of his great grand mother who died in the year 1941. His only grievance was that the said application was not numbered by the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and has been returned for compliance, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to call for the records in unnumbered C.M.P. of 2008, on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to take the matter on file. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the application should be directed to be numbered. 3. On the contrary, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submits that with reference to the prayer of the petitioner, a writ petition is not maintainable and points out that if the application is rejected, he can pursue further by filing a revision before the appellate authority and that since the application is returned for rectifying the defect pointed out and making compliance, he can very well approach the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, himself to get the application numbered. Without resorting to such course, the petitioner has rushed to this court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not permissible in law. 4. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner has come forward with the unnecessary writ petition only on the ground that the application filed before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, was returned for compliance. It is also pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has come forward with the application seeking for registration of the death of his great grand mother, who died in the year 1941, without any relevant document. 5. The XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, as per the return order, has only sought for filing of some authenticated document to show the proof of death other than the Uthrakiriyai letter, which was produced before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 5. The XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, as per the return order, has only sought for filing of some authenticated document to show the proof of death other than the Uthrakiriyai letter, which was produced before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, has also made an endorsement that the petition is returned in the interest of justice, as the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai was not satisfied with the document filed along with the petition, since the death has taken place long back in 1941 and only returned the application for production of the authenticated document. 6. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, he could always produce other documents to the satisfaction of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and even after the document is produced, if it is rejected under law, he has got the right of remedy by way of appeal or revision, as the case may be, before the appellate authority and without adhering such process, the petitioner has straightaway filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in unnumbered C.M.P. of 2008 on the file of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, the second respondent herein, and to quash the same and curiously further prayed to direct the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai to take the matter on file and register the date of death of the petitioners great grand mother as 211. 1941. Such a prayer cannot be granted and such a writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Above all these things, the tendency to implead the Presiding Officer of the Court had been deprecated by the Honble Apex Court and in this case also, the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has also been impleded as a party for an order of return of the application. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.