Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent society to dispose of the representation dated 16.2.2010 in accordance with law on or before a date to be fixed. 2. The petitioner owes certain amount to the second respondent-society and therefore the property was brought to auction. The petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No. 2340 of 2010 challenging the auction. A direction was issued by this Court in W.P.No.2340 of 2010 by its order dated 9.2.2010 to pay certain amount as a pre-condition for grant of interim stay of auction proceedings. The said interim order has not been complied with and that is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In the present case, the petitioner now states that his mother deposited a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- on 5.11.1998 and that was not given credit to by the society. On the contrary, a sum of Rs.5,000/- alone has been given credit. He is under the bonafide impression that the amount deposited by his mother has been taken into account and what he needs to pay is far less to comply with the interim direction of this Court. 4. The petitioner now states that one Sivagurunathan, cheated his mother by receiving Rs.2,05,000/- and issued a tampered receipt dated 5.11.1998 to show that a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- was deposited when actually the deposit made is Rs.5,000/- only. The said Sivagurunathan misappropriated Rs.2,00,000/-. In this regard, the petitioner has given a complaint to the first respondent and the writ petition has been filed to consider the said representation. 5. Heard Mr. Franklin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. In this case, without complying with the conditional order of this Court dated 9.2.2010 in W.P.No. 2340 of 2010, the writ petitioner has come before this Court with a new plea that a huge amount has been deposited in the year 1998 and that has not been properly given credit to. If there is an allegation of fraud against one or other persons, the petitioner has to seek recourse against that persons before the appropriate forum. Based on the payment alleged to have been made in the year 1998, the petitioner is seeking to stay all the further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 13.4.2010 by filing M.P.No. 1 of 2010. If there is an allegation of fraud against one or other persons, the petitioner has to seek recourse against that persons before the appropriate forum. Based on the payment alleged to have been made in the year 1998, the petitioner is seeking to stay all the further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 13.4.2010 by filing M.P.No. 1 of 2010. The writ petition is filed for an innocuous prayer (i.e.) to consider the representation and to take action on a person, who it is stated as having collected higher amount from the petitioners mother in the year 1998 and deposited a meager amount to the society. The factual dispute is now raised for the first time and the petitioners objective is to defeat the respondent claim. 7. The above plea appears to be an ingenious method adopted by the petitioner to avoid the payment as directed by this Court. The petitioner has not explained as to why, he did not verify the account from the year 1998 when he is the borrower. The affidavit, petition and interim order in WP No. 2340 of 2010 have not been enclosed and that creates a doubt about the bonafides of the plea. The petitioner, who is the borrower has taken this plea after so many years, and it appears to be tailor made to avoid the auction proceedings. The plea lacks bonafides and is belated. It has no legal basis for this Court to consider the same on merits. 8. This Court therefore, is of the view that the writ petitioner has not come to the Court with a just cause and his intention is not bonofide. The so called direction to dispose of the representation and the interim stay of the proceedings pending the final order is only to prolong the litigation and to avoid payment of money. It has no legal basis for the relief sought for. Photo copies of documents are relied upon to get an interim order and avoid auction proceedings. 9. The facts as pleaded does not show the bonafides. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2010 is also dismissed. 10. The method now adopted by the petitioner by filing a representation and a writ to dispose of the said representation is a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The facts as pleaded does not show the bonafides. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2010 is also dismissed. 10. The method now adopted by the petitioner by filing a representation and a writ to dispose of the said representation is a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner is liable to be put to terms for such abuse of process of Court and waste of judicial time. This Court therefore, is constrained to impose costs. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/-to the legal services authority, High Court, Madras towards cost.