ORDER : 1. Facts leading to these litigations are connected and the questions/issues to be adjudicated are also depend upon merits of the cases and therefore, these cases are disposed of by this common order. W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Saravana Selvarathinam Retail Private Limited, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 and the Managing Director of the petitioner Company has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and he would aver as follows: 2.1. The petitioner Company had purchased a property bearing Old Door No. 14/228, New Door Nos. 195, 196 and 197, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore, admeasuring to an extent of 6807.25 Sq. Ft. by way of Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 740/2012 dated 23.12.2011, registered on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. The petitioner Company had also purchased adjacent properties and applied for approval of the building plan before the concerned authority. The petitioner claims that due and proper verification of title and other relevant aspects had been made and while doing so, he became aware of the Civil Suit filed in O.S. No. 231 of 2014, pending on the file of the Vacation Judge, which was subsequently renumbered as O.S. No. 1063 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that a Release Deed dated 16.04.2013 in Doc. No. 3999 of 2013 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, has been fraudulently executed by the respondents 3 to 8 in respect of the property, belonging to the petitioner Company. 2.2. The petitioner would further aver that the respondents 3 to 8, taking advantage of the said registered Release Deed, started writing letters to the authorities not to approve the plan and in this regard, the petitioner Company has also lodged a police complaint, based on which an F.I.R. came to be registered by the Inspector of Police, Coimbatore City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. The respondents 3 to 8, on becoming aware of the said police complaint, started bargaining with the petitioner for money to cancel the Release Deed and also to withdraw the Civil Suit. The respondents 3 to 8, on becoming aware of the said police complaint, started bargaining with the petitioner for money to cancel the Release Deed and also to withdraw the Civil Suit. The petitioner would also aver that the respondents 5 to 8 have given a common address in the recitals and also produced false identity proof and has done registration of the settlement deed fraudulently. 2.3. In sum and substance, it is the claim of the petitioner that the respondents 3 to 8 do not have any right, title or possession over the said property and despite the fact that the Encumbrance Certificate would clearly reflect several transactions, did not verify properly the relevant records and registered the Settlement Deed in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 and therefore, came forward to file this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring that the registered Release Deed in Doc. No. 3999/2013 dated 16.04.2013 on the file of the second respondent as illegal and ultra vires, with a consequential direction directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry into the registration of the above document and take appropriate action against the respondents 2 to 8 in accordance with law. 2.4. Originally, the Writ Petition was listed before the Court on the ground of Maintainability and vide order dated 05.09.2014, the Registry was directed to number the Writ Petition and list it For Admission and thereafter, notices were ordered to the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also circulated a letter dated 22.12.2016 to the Registry stating that W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 and C.R.P. No. 440 of 2016 are also connected with this matter and since all the three cases are inter-connected, prayed for listing of all the cases together. Accordingly, all the cases are tagged together and directed to be listed before this Court. 2.5. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating among other things that the Release Deed was presented for registration at the office of the second respondent and it was kept as pending document No. 65/2013 and thereafter, the District Registrar, Coimbatore has sought clarification from the first respondent under Section 56(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as to the amount of duty with which the aforesaid instrument was chargeable. A clarification was also given to the District Registrar, Coimbatore stating that the subject document has to be classified as a Release , falling within the ambit of Article 55A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and based on the same, the second respondent, after collecting proper stamp duty and registration fees, has registered the instrument as Doc. No. 3999/2013. 2.6. It is further averred by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that as regards production of patta and original instrument, under which the parties claim right over the property, instructions were given to the Registering Officer in Letter No. 20435/P1/2013 dated 19.06.2013 not to insist for production of title deed in original and based on the same only, the Release Deed came to be registered. As regards the allegation as to production of false identity proof and fictitious address, the first respondent took a stand that the concerned personnel might have changed his residential address after obtaining such identity proof. 2.7. The first respondent has also invited the attention to Rule 55 of the Registration Rules and stated that the Registering Authority can only enquire into the objections falling under the said Rule, but cannot go into the question of title nor it can go into the validity of the documents presented for registration, more so in the event of rival claims. It is also stated by the first respondent that the entires reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate, do not indicate any conveyance of interest made by the legal heirs of the original owner, late Purushothaman and the said document also confirms the fact that the releasors and releases are having pre-existing right over the property comprised in the registered document and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 2.8. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would state as follows: (i) The writ petitioner has no locus standi to make a challenge to the registered Release Deed executed in favour of the family members and he, being a third party to the document, cannot seek to set aside the same by filing the present Writ Petition. (ii) The third respondent has also traced the title in paras 4 to 6 of the counter affidavit and took a stand that he got the Release Deed dated 16.04.2013 in Doc. (ii) The third respondent has also traced the title in paras 4 to 6 of the counter affidavit and took a stand that he got the Release Deed dated 16.04.2013 in Doc. No. 3999 of 2013 from the legal heirs of Thiru. Jayaramana, the second son of Thiru. Purushotama Naidu and Tmt. Chandra, wife of Thiru. Govindarajulu Naidu, who are arrayed as the respondents 3 to 9 and on execution of the said Release Deed, his share of the property was enlarged from 1/5 to 3/5 and he continue to remain in absolute possession and enjoyment of the entire property, which is a vacant site. (iii) The third respondent also took a stand that the petitioner taking advantage of the fact that his lands were vacant and that he is also politically well connected, attempted to trespass into his property and put up construction and by using money and muscle power, the petitioner attempted to obtain building plan approval by including the lands belonging to him as a part of his holding. The third respondent, in this regard, has also submitted objection to the Directorate of Country Planning, the local Town Planning Authority at Coimbatore and the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, not to grant permission for putting up any construction and in order to protect his possession, the third respondent has also filed a Suit in O.S. No. 1063 of 2014 before the Vacation Judge on the file of the District Munsif Court at Coimbatore and thereafter, it got transferred and numbered as O.S. No. 231 of 2014 and in the said Suit, the present writ petitioner has been arrayed as one of the defendants. (iv) The petitioner, as a defendant, has subsequently filed I.A. No. 1677 of 2014, for rejection of the plaint and it was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 05.10.2015 and making a challenge to the said order, the writ petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 440 of 2016 and the same is pending. (v) It is also averred by the third respondent that objections as to the grant of building plan approval/planning permission has been considered by the Town and Country Planning authorities and vide, provisional planning permission dated 11.06.2014, they made it clear that the same is subject to the outcome of O.S. No. 231 of 2014 and other connected cases, which are pending before the District Munsif Court and this Court. (vi) It is also stated by the third respondent that the order obtained by the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 30212 to 30214 of 2013 have nothing to do with the present case for the reason that the subject matter of the said writ petitions as well as in O.S. No. 231 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif Court at Coimbatore, is entirely different. (vii) The third respondent also took a stand that the petitioner, having obtained planning permission by including his property, started putting up construction, despite the order of Status Quo granted on 06.02.2012 in W.P. No. 32232 of 2015 and also took a stand that the writ petitioner, having instituted a Suit in O.S. No. 1442 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Coimbatore to declare the said Settlement Deed as null and void, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition. (viii) As regards, lodging of criminal complaint by the petitioner, it is stated by the third respondent that he obtained Anticipatory Bail before the District Munsif Court at Coimbatore and challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed Crl. R.C. Nos. 693 and 694 of 2014 and a report was also called for from the concerned Court and upon receipt and perusal of the same, this Court has dismissed both the Criminal Revision Petitions on 07.10.2014 and further challenge made to the said order by filing S.L.P. Nos. 9466 to 9467 of 2014 had also ended in dismissal and therefore, prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 3.1. The third respondent in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order of the first respondent dated 06.02.2015, in and by which the provisional sanction accorded, vide order dated 11.06.2014, which is relaxed by yet another order dated 06.02.2015. It is the stand of the writ petitioner that the first respondent has proceeded to relax the provisional permission accorded by it subject to the outcome of the legal proceedings and without due and proper application of mind, has deleted conditions and it would definitely affect the civil rights of the petitioner in pending legal proceedings, especially the Civil Suit and prayed for quashment of the same. 3.2. 3.2. The Writ Petition was entertained on 01.12.2015 and Status Quo prevailing as on that day was directed to be maintained and it has been extended until further orders, vide order dated 08.01.2016. 3.3. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, taking the very same stand in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 and also filed an affidavit of undertaking dated 21.01.2015 undertaking to abide by the Civil Court decree as well as in any manner taking advantage of the building plan approval/planning permission. C.R.P. (PD) No. 440 of 2016 4.1. The third respondent in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014/petitioner in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015, originally filed a Suit in O.S. No. 1063 of 2014 before the Vacation Civil Judge on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, against the Commissioner of Coimbatore Corporation, The Local Town Planning Office, Assistant Director, Town Planning Commission Office as well as against the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014, praying for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the fourth respondent from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property in Block No. 14, T.S. No. 6/1350, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore. The said Suit was transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 1063 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Coimbatore. 4.2. The fourth defendant, after entering appearance, has filed I.A. No. 1677 of 2014 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint and the first respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter. The Court of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, on appreciation of the materials placed, vide fair and decreetal order dated 05.10.2015, found that the main question relates to the rights of the parties as to whether the fourth defendant has valid title over the Suit property or the relatives of the plaintiff, through which he got Release Deed and it can be agitated only during the course of trial and has rejected the said petition and challenging the legality of the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4.3. 4.3. It is brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff that subsequently, the fourth defendant has filed the Written Statement dated 18.08.2017 and took a stand that even if the decree is passed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff, it would only be a nullity for the reason that a superstructure has also come in place and in the light of the said development, nothing remains for further adjudication in this revision and prays for dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Mr. T.V. Ramanujan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 has invited the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that with regard to the pending Document No. P65/13, the District Registrar, Coimbatore, vide letter No. 5218/A1/2013 dated 25.04.2013, has sought for clarifications under Sections 56(2) of the Indian Stamp Act viz. firstly, whether the said document is to be classified as a Release Deed under the ambit of Section 35-A or 55A of the Indian Stamp Act and secondly, whether the said document can be registered without insisting for production of parent document and patta passbook. The first respondent, vide communication in Na. Ka. No. 20435/P1/2013 dated 17.05.2013, has clarified that as per the Circular dated 08.08.1988, only after considering the registered earlier deeds, the nature of the release deed is to be fixed and a clean typed copy of the said document in respect of the entire property and Encumbrance Certificate have to be submitted and then only decision can be taken. As regards the second query, the first respondent has pointed out that as per the Circular dated 25.04.2013, the concerned person has to produce evidence to show that he is the owner of the property and if no original document is available, patta relating to the said property should be necessarily filed. 6. The primordial submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that despite clarifications obtained, the concerned Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, without insisting for patta, has registered the Release Deed dated 16.04.2013 in Doc. 6. The primordial submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that despite clarifications obtained, the concerned Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, without insisting for patta, has registered the Release Deed dated 16.04.2013 in Doc. No. 3999/2013, which is nothing but fraudulent registration by the respondents 3 to 8 in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner and since the subordinate officials has violated the instructions of the superior officials, namely the first respondent, despite seeking clarification, registration of the said Release Deed is to be necessarily declared as illegal with a consequential direction to conduct a detailed enquiry as to facts that lead to the fraudulent registration of the said document. 7. Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that based on the clarification given by the first respondent, the second respondent, after collecting appropriate stamp duty and registration fees, has registered the document and insofar as non-production of title deed, a clarification has been obtained to the effect that it was handed over to the purchaser under earlier Sale Deed registered during the year 1942 and having satisfied with the same, the second respondent has registered the same accordingly. It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that under Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, Registering Authority cannot go into the question of title nor it can go into the validity of the documents presented for registration and the Registering Authority is not empowered to decide the title in case of rival claims made by various parties and prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 8. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015/third respondent in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 would submit that taking advantage of the fraudulent purchase, the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014/fourth respondent in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015, managed to get permission to put up superstructure and though the planning permission dated 11.06.2014 makes it clear that such a permission has been granted subject to the outcome of W.P. Nos. 30212 to 30214 of 2013 and the pending litigation in O.S. No. 231 of 2014 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Coimbatore, the said condition has been deleted and in any event, before deleting the same, the petitioner in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015/third respondent in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 should have been put on notice and prays for interference. 9. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 440 of 2016 is the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014/fourth respondent in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the third respondent in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 has filed a Civil Suit on the file of the Vacation Judge, Coimbatore and later on transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Coimbatore and numbered as O.S. No. 1063 of 2014, wherein he sought the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Revision Petition/fourth respondent in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property in Block No. 14, T.S. No. 6/1350, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore and also for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, namely the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Local Town Planning Office, The Town Planning Commission Office, from granting permission or approval for the construction of the fourth defendant in any manner including the Suit property and the said Suit is not at all maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has purchased the said property through valid Sale Deed in Doc. No. 749 of 2012 dated 23.12.2011 for a valid sale consideration and in the absence of any document to sustain the same, the Suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it is hit by the Principle of Res Judicata in the light of O.S. No. 1063 of 2014 and therefore, filed I.A. No. 1677 of 2014, for rejection of the plaint and however, the learned Trial Judge, without proper appreciation of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, has erroneously concluded that the issue has to be gone into in the main Suit, overlooking the fact that the Suit is only for Permanent Injunction and therefore, prays for allowing this Revision Petition with a consequential order, rejecting the Plaint in the said Suit. 10. During the course of arguments, the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties also sought to attack the title of the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014/fourth respondent in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015. However, this Court is not inclined to go into inter se dispute between the parties for the reason that the Civil Suit is pending in O.S. No. 1063 of 2014, on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore and if any observations/findings made herein, it would affect the final outcome of the said Suit and that apart, this Court is deciding these Writ Petitions based on affidavits and typed set of documents. It is also to be noted at this juncture that, after entertainment of C.R.P. No. 440 of 2016, the Revision Petitioner has also filed the Written Statement in the main Suit. 11. In Rajambal vs. The Inspector General (Registration), Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhome, Chennai and Others, 2012 (2) LW 873 , one of the questions arose for consideration is whether the Registering Authority can demand for production of patta and revenue records, for accepting a document for registration or not. 11. In Rajambal vs. The Inspector General (Registration), Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhome, Chennai and Others, 2012 (2) LW 873 , one of the questions arose for consideration is whether the Registering Authority can demand for production of patta and revenue records, for accepting a document for registration or not. The learned Judge, after taking note of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and in para 51 of the said judgment observed that Therefore, it appears that the requirement under Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, is not an encroachment into the field occupied by the Registration Act and the Registration Rules and it is only an additional requirement, that does not run contrary to any specific prescription contained in the Registration Act, 1908. It is also relevant to extract para 44 of the said judgment: "44. Apart from imposing a restriction under Section 5(1), on the registration of a document relating to the transfer of any land, the Act also contains other interesting provisions. For instance, Section 6 of the Act states that the entries in the patta pass book issued by the Tahsildar under Section 3 shall be prima facie evidence of title of the person in whose name the patta pass book has been issued and that too, free of any prior encumbrances. I do not know how far this provision will stand judicial scrutiny in view of the law consistently laid down by Courts. In Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner, 2007 (6) SCC 186 , the Supreme Court pointed out that an Entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in the record of rights. The Entries in the revenue records was held to have only fiscal purpose i.e. payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such Entries. In so far as the title to the property is concerned, it should be decided only by a competent Civil Court. The Supreme Court quoted with approval the previous decision in Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653 . In so far as the title to the property is concerned, it should be decided only by a competent Civil Court. The Supreme Court quoted with approval the previous decision in Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653 . Anyway I am not concerned here, with the validity of Section 6." In para 52 of the said decision, it is concluded that Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, is not repugnant to any provision contained in the Registration Act, at least in so far as agricultural land, is concerned and therefore, the third respondent therein was entitled to make the demand for the reason that the property conveyed was an agricultural land. Therefore, the said decision lay down the proposition that insistence of patta is not relatable to registration of agricultural land. 12. In Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 767 , the matter in issue pertains to unilateral cancellation of the deed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India formulated a question whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to declare the registered deeds (between the private parties) as void ab initio and to cancel the same despite the fact that the aggrieved party has already resorted to alternative efficacious remedy and consequently, even the High Court is endowed with such a wide power to examine the validity of the registered extinguishment deed and the subsequent registered deeds, should it foreclose the issues which involve disputed questions of fact and germane for adjudication by the competent forum under the 1960 Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the provisions of Sections 34 to 36 of the Registration Act, 1908 and observed in para 41 as follows: "41. Section 35 of the Act does not confer a quasi-judicial power on the Registering Authority. The Registering Officer is expected to reassure that the document to be registered is accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such. The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the 1908 Act. In Park View Enterprises vs. State of T.N. AIR 1990 Mad. He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such. The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the 1908 Act. In Park View Enterprises vs. State of T.N. AIR 1990 Mad. 251 , it has been observed that the function of the Registering Officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by persons having title, as mentioned in the instrument....." 13. The primordial submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 is that pending registration of the Release Deed, a specific clarification has been sought by the District Registrar, Coimbatore, vide letter No. 5218/A1/2013 dated 25.04.2013 to the first respondent, who, vide communication dated 17.05.2013 has also clarified that as per the Circular dated 25.04.2013, the concerned person has to produce evidence to show that he is the owner of the property and if no original document is available, patta relating to the said property should be necessarily filed and despite the fact that the private respondents did not produce patta, the Release Deed came to be registered and as such, it should be declared as illegal and ultra vires. 14. In the considered opinion of the Court, despite the alleged violation of the said instructions which resulted in registration of the Release Deed, this Court, in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot declare a registered document as null and void for the reason that the perusal of the affidavits and counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions would prima facie disclose that there are serious disputed questions of fact as to the prior title and ownership. 17. The decision in Rajambal case (cited supra) has also laid down the proposition that invocation of Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1953 pertain to agricultural lands. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satya Pal Anand case (cited supra) has also laid down the proposition that the Registering Authority is expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document and the examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the 1908 Act. 18. 18. The third respondent in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014/petitioner in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 has also filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 1063 of 2014 against the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014/ praying for Permanent Injunction and the present dispute made also may be incidentally decided as to whether the plaintiff/petitioner in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 is entitled for a decree for Permanent Injunction or not. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to declare the Release Deed as illegal and ultra vires, but at the same time the petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 is permitted to submit a representation to the first respondent along with a copy of this order passed herein and other relevant documents including the communication of the first respondent dated 17.05.2013 in Na. Ka. No. 20435/P1/2013, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the same, the first respondent shall entertain the same and after putting the respondents 3 to 8 on notice and after eliciting their response from the second respondent as well as the District Registrar (Administration), Coimbatore, shall consider the said representation on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of ten weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as the private respondents. 19. Therefore, W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. 20. Grievance expressed by the petitioner is that though in the original planning permission/approval dated 11.06.2014, it has been indicated that the planning permission is subject to the outcome of the pending W.P. Nos. 30212 to 30214 of 2014 as well as the pending Suit in O.S. No. 231 of 2014, the said condition has been deleted without putting the petitioner on notice. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 has invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit of undertaking dated 21.01.2015 filed by the fourth respondent therein/petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014, undertaking that he agreed to abide by the decision of the Suit in O.S. No. 231 of 2014, instituted by the petitioner. In the light of the said undertaking, it is clarified that the planning permission dated 11.06.2014 given by the first respondent in Na. Ka. In the light of the said undertaking, it is clarified that the planning permission dated 11.06.2014 given by the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 12502/2013 is subject to the outcome of the pending litigations. 21. Hence, W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 is disposed of accordingly. 22. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 1677 of 2014 in O.S. No. 1063 of 2014, seeking for rejection of the plaint would disclose that the fourth defendant/petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 took a stand that the Civil Suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law and no document has been available in favour of the plaintiff to prove his legal ownership and that it is also barred by the Principle of Res Judicata. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that subsequent to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition, the revision petitioner has filed the Written Statement in the said Suit and also filed a Transfer O.P. in Tr. O.P. No. 115 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal District, Coimbatore, praying for transfer of O.S. No. 1442 of 2015. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all the materials and has rightly reached the conclusion that the points urged by the revision petitioner/petitioner in W.P. No. 24608 of 2014/fourth respondent in W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 can be decided only during the course of trial. It is also to be noted at this juncture that subsequently, the Revision Petitioner has also filed the Written Statement and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the issues in the Suit have to be decided based on pleadings and evidence to be let in and no case has been made out for rejection of the plaint and the Lower Court was right in dismissing the application, seeking rejection of the plaint and finds no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. 23. Hence, CRP (PD) No. 440 of 2016 is dismissed. No costs. 24. In the result: (i) W.P. No. 24608 of 2014 is disposed of with the above directions. (ii) W.P. No. 38232 of 2015 is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (ii) C.R.P. (PD) No. 440 of 2016 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.