Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2579 (MAD)

S. M. Saffiullah v. M. Abdul Rahman

2014-08-12

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 07.01.2014, made in W.P.(MD) No.326 of 2014. 2. The respondents 5 to 8, in W.P.(MD)No.326 of 2014, are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal. The first respondent is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition had been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 therein, their men, agent, servant or anyone claiming under them not to involve in the civil dispute of the petitioner's property which is the subject matter of judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.525 of 1996 by the Additional District Munsif, Trichy. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that without notice to the appellants, the order impugned in the Writ Appeal has been passed. Further, the learned counsel had submitted that the petitioner in the writ petition/the first respondent herein had not brought to the knowledge of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.525 of 1996 while passing the order by the Tahsildar on 22.08.2013. Therefore, even though the writ petitioner had not sought for setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 22.08.2013, the learned Judge had set aside the said order and disposed of the Writ Petition. Challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 07.01.2014, in W.P.(MD) No.326 of 2014, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 5. 5. Earlier, with regard to the civil dispute of the petitioner's property, which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.525 of 1996, the Tahsildar, Lalgudi Taluk, had conducted a Peace Committee Meeting. It is the specific plea of the appellants that the judgment in O.S.No.525 of 1996, dated 28.02.2011 was not brought to the notice of the Tahsildar, Lalgudi Taluk. While disposing the Writ Petition, the learned Judge permitted the petitioner to place the judgment passed in O.S.No.525 of 1996 to the knowledge of the Tahsildar and thereafter, there was a direction to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the other private parties concerned viz., the appellants herein, before passing appropriate orders. Further, the learned Judge found that since no relief was claimed against the respondents 5 to 8 therein/the appellants herein, no notice was ordered to them. Even though no notice was ordered to the respondents 5 to 8/ the appellants herein, the learned Judge directed the Tahsildar, Lalgudi, to pass appropriate orders after giving notice to them. Hence, no interference is called for against the order passed by the learned Judge. It is open to the appellants to participate in the Peace Committee Meeting along with the materials related to the judgment in O.S.No.525 of 1996, dated 28.02.2011. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5, had submitted that the Tahsildar would issue fresh notice to all the parties concerned and afford due opportunity and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. The said submission is recorded. 7. With the above observations, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.