JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner by name Ragupathy has come to this court by filing the present writ petition to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A5/2698/2010 dated 27.09.2010 and to quash the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question bearing S.No.243/11 measuring to an extent of 60 cents at Varanavasi Village, Ariyalur Taluk and District originally belongs to the grand father of the petitioner one Thayappa Gounder. The grand father settled the said property in favour of the petitioner's mother Tmt.Neelavathy at the time of her marriage. Thus the mother of the petitioner became the absolute owner of the said property. Later on, joint patta was also issued in the name of the petitioner and his mother vide Patta No.322. After the death of the petitioner's mother, the patta stands in the name of the petitioner. 3. In the meanwhile the 3rd respondent filed a suit in OS.No.255 of 1987 before the District Munsif, Ariyalur, seeking for a declaration and permanent injunction and also recovery of possession against the petitioner's father claiming that he is entitled to get 30 cents out of the total extent of 60 cents. The said suit was resisted by the father of the petitioner, placing evidence before the District Munsif, to substantiate that the 3rd respondent has no right whatsoever in the said property. The suit was finally taken up by the learned District Munsif who, after analysing the evidence on record, dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1994. As against the said order, the respondent did not prefer any appeal. Notwithstanding the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur, a fresh suit has been filed against the petitioner in OS.No.322 of 2009 before the same Munsif for the very same relief and the same is also pending. The petitioner, filed the written statement denying 3rd respondent's right over the property and also raised the plea of res-judicata and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Now, the suit is pending for trial. Since the matter was not taken up for quite long time, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, filed the written statement denying 3rd respondent's right over the property and also raised the plea of res-judicata and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Now, the suit is pending for trial. Since the matter was not taken up for quite long time, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This court, by elaborate orders dated 03.12.2010 made in CRP.No.3759 of 2010, while allowing the Revision, held that the suit filed by the 3rd respondent was a clear abuse of process of court and therefore, the 2nd suit in OS.No.322 of 2009 is liable to be struck off. Pointing out the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when there is an order passed by this Court in CRP.No.3759 of 2010 dated 03.12.2010 giving a clear-cut finding that the third respondent has no right whatsoever in the land in question in S.No.243 of 2011 in Varanavsi Village, Ariyalur Taluk, the first respondent erroneously, without application of mind, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, he sought to set aside the same. 5. Opposing the said arguments, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent made two fold submissions: Firstly, the 3rd respondent aggrieved by the order passed by this court, filed review and therefore the present writ petition cannot be entertained. Secondly, the first respondent has already issued an enquiry notice calling upon the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent to participate in the enquiry and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, if he participates in the enquiry before the 1st respondent. 6. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides. 7. The 3rd respondent-Manickam and his father repeatedly filed suits one after the other. When O.S. No.255 of 1987 was filed by R-3 against one Singamuthu Gounder for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of 30 cents in Survey No.243/11 in Varanasi Village, Ariyalur, he had taken a defence that S. No.243/11 consisting of 60 cents originally belongs to his father Dhaya Gounder and one Duraisamy Gounder. When the third respondent’s father and Duraisamy Gounder divided the same, the southern portion consisting of 30 cents was allotted to the share of the third respondent’s father-Dhaya Gounder. The northern portion of the land admeasuring 30 cents was allotted to Duraisamy Gounder. When the third respondent’s father and Duraisamy Gounder divided the same, the southern portion consisting of 30 cents was allotted to the share of the third respondent’s father-Dhaya Gounder. The northern portion of the land admeasuring 30 cents was allotted to Duraisamy Gounder. But the said suit in O.S. No.255 of 1987 filed before the District Munsif, Ariyalur, was dismissed. Subsequently, O.S.No.322 of 2009 with same set of allegations and seeking the very same prayer for declaration was filed by the 3rd respondent before the same Court. The only difference was that that the earlier suit was filed against the petitioner’s father while the 2nd suit in O.S.No.322 of 2009 has been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement with a specific plea of res judicata and on that basis, prayed the trial court for dismissal of the 2nd suit. In the meanwhile, R3 made an application before the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, Ariyalur Taluk, claiming patta in respect of the said property without disclosing the earlier judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur, declining to grant the relief of declaration and injunction, or in the alternative, for recovery of possession. When the relief claimed before the Civil Court in O.S.No.255 of 1987 itself clearly indicated that the 3rd respondent is not in possession of the property and his alternative prayer for recovery of possession having been negatived by the trial court, the petitioner filed CRP.No.3759 of 2010 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the suit filed in O.S.No.322 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur. This Court, by order dated 03.12.2010, allowed the Revision by holding specifically that the 3rd respondent, by filing the suit in O.S.No.322 of 2009, has abused the process of the court, and on that basis, ordered striking off the suit in O.S.No.322 of 2009. When the 2nd suit filed by the 3rd respondent also was struck off on the orders of this Court passed in the aforementioned Revision Petition, the question of entertaining the application seeking patta by the Tahsildar-4th respondent does not arise at all. When the 2nd suit filed by the 3rd respondent also was struck off on the orders of this Court passed in the aforementioned Revision Petition, the question of entertaining the application seeking patta by the Tahsildar-4th respondent does not arise at all. First of all, the 3rd respondent has no right whatsoever, after the dismissal of the first suit filed in O.S.No.255 of 1987 which was filed against the petitioner’s father before the District Munsif, Ariyalur, since his prayer for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question was dismissed. Secondly, when the 3rd respondent himself has filed yet another suit in O.S.No.322 of 2009 before the very same District Munsif's Court at Ariyalur for the very same relief, while deciding the above mentioned Civil Revision Petition, this court by allowing the said CRP, struck off the 2nd suit. When this aspect was also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, I do not understand why the 2nd respondent entertained the application of the third respondent for grant of patta. Therefore, the first respondent is not justified in holding the enquiry without considering the facts of the case particularly, the order passed by this court in CRP.No.3759 of 2010, and in passing the impugned order dated 27.09.2010. Hence, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.