JUDGMENT : SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. The appellant before this Court has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2020 passed in W.P. No. 10398/2020, Ananda Gowda vs. Smt. Nagamma and Another. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant has approached the learned Single Judge earlier also, by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 36144/2017 and the learned Single Judge has passed an order on 25.01.2019, which reads as under: “Mr. Ajay Prabhu M. learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sharath Kumar H.N. learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Under Section 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser of the property from respondent No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 27.06.2015 and is no in any way related to respondent No. 1 and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. However, he submits that he be granted liberty to raise objection in this regard before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner be directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner by a speaking order before proceeding further with the matter. On the other hand,, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner has unilaterally recorded a finding that the respondent is occupying the land which is a part of the sale deed. Therefore, the Tahasildar is directed to enquire and submit the report. The petitioner has a right to raise contention before the Assistant Commissioner and that he has no jurisdiction under the Act to proceed for the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise an objection with regard to maintainability of the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act for the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise an objection with regard to maintainability of the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act for the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files such an application, the Assistant Commissioner shall decide the objection preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties before proceeding further with the matter. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.” 3. The learned Single Judge has directed the Assistant Commissioner to pass necessary orders as directed by this Court after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties before proceeding further with the matter. The case was relating to a dispute under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Learned Assistant Commissioner has not passed any order and a second petition was preferred claiming the same relief. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 19.11.2020 passed in W.P. No. 10398/2020 has passed the following order: “1. Petitioner has presented this writ petition with a prayer inter-alia to direct the second respondent to decide the objections with regard to maintainability of proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 36144/2017. 2. This Court, in W.P. No. 36144/2017 has granted liberty to the petitioner to raise an objection with regard to maintainability within two weeks from the date of disposal of the said writ petition and directed the Assistant Commissioner to decide the objection by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties. 3. Having already obtained the order as aforementioned, petitioner has presented this writ petition seeking the very same relief. A second writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. No costs.” 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the second petition as the same relief was prayed in the earlier round of litigation. In case earlier order passed by this Court has not been complied with, the appellant is certainly having a remedy to prefer a contempt petition. No costs.” 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the second petition as the same relief was prayed in the earlier round of litigation. In case earlier order passed by this Court has not been complied with, the appellant is certainly having a remedy to prefer a contempt petition. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.