JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining the impugned auction notice issued by the second respondent in Form No.8, vide C.E.P.No.2 of 2014-15, dated 20.02.2020 and quash the same.) 1. The hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing. 2. There are two brothers, namely, P.Sivakumar and P.Sasikumar. They are both residing in the same Village at Kallai Post, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. They appear to be possessed with joint family properties. They are the only sharers for the properties. Each are entitled to an undivided one half share. 3. The present writ petitioner P.Sivakumar, was appointed as a Clerk, originally on 04.04.2001 in Pathiripatti Primary Agriculture Co- operative Credit Society. He was given subsequent promotions and finally, he was posted on 01.07.2010, as Secretary (Incharge) to the Keezhaveliyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. He was then placed on suspension on 17.06.2013, on the ground of misappropriation. 4. It is seen from the records that charge of mis-appropriation was to a sum of Rs.69,92,886/-. The petitioner had also suffered a decree on 02.09.2014 in the surcharge proceedings. He had filed an Appeal in C.M.A. (CS).No.1 of 2014, nearly about six years back and the appeal is still pending, in the Court of the learned District Judge, at Karur. 5. I am not able to comprehend the reason for non disposal of C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014, since even in the month of November 2016, as is evident from an affidavit filed by the respondents seeking to vacate the stay granted in W.A.(MD).No.1261 of 2016, the said C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014 was posted for arguments and it is very shocking that C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014, has not yet been disposed. Before proceeding further, an explanation is called for from the learned District Judge, Karur, giving the reasons for non disposal of C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014 and in the said explanation, the learned District Judge may clearly point out and whether it was due to either the non advancement of arguments the learned counsels for the appellant herein or the learned counsel for the respondents. Explanation may be given drawing reference to the notes papers. The learned District Judge may also give a schedule for disposal of C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014. 6. Explanation may be given drawing reference to the notes papers. The learned District Judge may also give a schedule for disposal of C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014. 6. Be that as it may, the respondents initiated execution proceedings by bringing the joint family property to sale. The brother of the petitioner, who is not involved in any manner whatsoever P.Sasikumar filed W.P.(MD).No.14171 of 2016, questioning such action of the respondents. He was represented by an Advocate and in the Bar, it was stated that there was no objection to divide the property into two halves, and that there was no objection to bring the other half of the property for sale. The learned Single Judge of this court was lead to believe the said submission. On the basis of the said submission, the learned Single Judge had recorded as follows in order dated 05.08.2016. “5. Since the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court that half of the property in question can be brought into action by the first respondent, for which, he has no objection, the first respondent is directed to demarcate or subdivide the property in the presence of the petitioner as well as the second respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On doing so, the first respondent is directed to bring the half of the property belonging to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of demarcation. 6. Until such exercise is done, the impugned order in this Writ Petition remains to be stayed and accordingly, it is stayed. Notice through Court as well as privately returnable by 04.10.2016. List the matter along with counter on 04.10.2016.” 7. Thereafter, on the basis of the directions given, the respondents proceeded to demarcate and divide the property. The two brothers then joined hands. The writ petitioner in the earlier Writ Petition, P.Sasikumar, refused to receive the notice issued seeking presence during such division of the properties. The petitioner herein received the notice. But both the brothers avoided / refused to participate in the proceedings to demarcate the property into two equal halves. The respondents however proceeded to divide the property. This was on the basis of the directions of the learned Single Judge. 8. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the present petitioner P.Sivakumar, by filing W.A.(MD).No.1261 of 2016. The respondents however proceeded to divide the property. This was on the basis of the directions of the learned Single Judge. 8. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the present petitioner P.Sivakumar, by filing W.A.(MD).No.1261 of 2016. It had been filed in nearly four years back and it is informed that the said Writ Appeal is still pending. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that stay had been granted against the order in W.P. (MD).No.1471 of 2016. This submission is contested by the learned Special Government Pleader, who stated that the stay had been granted only in November 2016 and thereafter, it had not been extended. As on date, W.A. (MD).No.1471 of 2016 and C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014 are still pending. 9. The impugned order has now been passed seeking to bring an auction one half share of the property, which had been demarcated as the share of the present petitioner P.Sivakumar. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has questioned the impugned order on the ground that there is no reference to the pendency of the Writ Appeal, wherein, the order in the Writ Petition had been stayed. It had also been stated that the respondents have also initiated execution proceedings even though C.M.A.(CS).No.1 of 2014 is still pending. 10. A careful perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner had been, in some manner or the other avoiding execution of decree in favour of the respondents. Since both the Writ Appeal and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are pending, multiplicity of proceedings by instituting another Writ Petition is not warranted. The petitioner may seek any relief in manner known to law. Filing of a separate Writ Petition is not the answer. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner claims that the petitioner had deposited a vbsubstantial sum of money towards the decree suffered in the surcharge proceedings without prejudice to his rights. These are all the aspects which can be raised in the appropriate forum in the pending litigations and a separate Writ Petition leading to a multiplicity of proceedings should not be encouraged and therefore, I am not impressed by the said arguments. 11. It is also seen that the third respondent had been impleaded by name. The Registry is directed to delete the third respondent from the cause title at the time of issuing order copy. 11. It is also seen that the third respondent had been impleaded by name. The Registry is directed to delete the third respondent from the cause title at the time of issuing order copy. The learned District Judge, Karur, has to forward the explanation for non disposal of C.M.A.(CS).No 1 of 2014 to the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, on or before 05.06.2020. The Registry is directed to circulate the same in chambers. 12. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.