JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, (a) call for records and quash the status quo order passed by the 1st Respondent on 20.12.2023 as the same is ultra vires as the said Tribunal is not vested such powers and does not having the Statutory Jurisdiction to do same confining to the facts and circumstances in Company Petition No.126/CH/ 2023 filed by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 241 to 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the learned 1st respondent; (b) directing the 4th respondent herein the Sub-Registrar of Mathurandhagam to continue the registration process in respect of the properties vide to the DTCP Approval No.40/2023 and its layout and plots.) 1. Heard Mr. M. Pradeep Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate for respondent 4. 2. The second respondent has filed a company petition under Sections 241 to 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal [for brevity, “the NCLT”] on the ground of mismanagement of the third respondent company. The present petitioner has purchased the same property from the third respondent company on or about 28.02.2022. 3. The order came to be passed on or about 20.12.2023 directing status quo to be maintained and further explanation was sought as to why the plots, which are part of “Araiyapakkam Property” have been sold and to give explanation why contempt action should not be initiated. The matter was placed on 24.01.2024. On 24.01.2024, counter was filed by the present petitioner and the delay in filing the counter was condoned. The matter was thereafter adjourned and now the same is kept on 10.04.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NCLT does not have the jurisdiction to pass the order of status quo and/or to consider the petition challenging the sale deed after three months of its execution. The sale deed was executed on 28.02.2022 and the application was filed on 02.11.2023. Beyond the period of three months, the NCLT could not have exercised its jurisdiction. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the registration of the sale and the purchase of the plots have been stalled. The people are put to loss. This aspect needs to be considered. 6. Beyond the period of three months, the NCLT could not have exercised its jurisdiction. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the registration of the sale and the purchase of the plots have been stalled. The people are put to loss. This aspect needs to be considered. 6. The application is sub-judice before the NCLT and the same is kept for hearing on 10.04.2024. The NCLT has observed in its order that “during the last hearing, it has been specifically told to the respondents not to precipitate the matter and not to take any action which may be prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner”, however, the plots were sold. In that premise, the order of status quo was passed. 7. The petitioner shall raise all these contentions before the NCLT in the company petition bearing C.P.No.126 of 2023. The NCLT is seized of the subject matter. In view of that, it would not be appropriate to entertain the present writ petition. 8. The writ petition, as such, stands disposed of, keeping all contentions of the petitioner open. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.6980 and 6981 of 2024 are closed.