logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1458 print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : C.M.P. (MD) No. 1045 of 2026 in W.A. (MD) SR No. 74574 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Parties : Divya Bagya Versus Jegan & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Rajmohan for M/s. Dhana Law Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents: R2, J. Ashok, Additional Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 03-02-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 -


Judgment :-

(Prayer: (in C.M.P.(MD) No.1045 of 2026): Petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant leave to the petitioner to file a writ appeal as against the order passed by this Court, dated 28.01.2025 in W.P. (MD) No.2406 of 2025.

(in W.A.(MD) SR No.74574 of 2025): Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court, dated 28.01.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.2406 of 2025.)

Dr. G. Jayachandran J

1. The petitioner herein wants to interfere with and challenge the order, dated 28.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 2406 of 2025, alleging that the sale deed, which was presented by the first respondent / writ petitioner for registration, was rejected by the second respondent by stating that out of three power agents, only one has executed the sale deed and therefore, the same cannot be received for registration. However, for the similar reason, when the refusal slip was issued for the sale deed presented by one of the power agents, namely, Jegan / first respondent herein in favour of the petitioner herein, the learned Single Judge has passed the order directing the Sub Registrar to receive the sale deed and register the same. Since the first respondent / writ petitioner is the vendor to the petitioner herein also, she wants to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge by preferring a writ appeal.

2. This Court, on perusing the records finds that the learned Single Judge, though allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, there is a condition that while presenting the document, the third respondent herein / principal must be present. Therefore, the petitioner herein can have no say in the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein and if at all, she has any agreement with the principal or one or all the power agents, she can only seek for enforcement of her right before the Civil Court. Hence, we are not inclined to grant leave to the petitioner herein.

3. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition seeking leave of this Court to the petitioner herein to prefer a writ appeal as third party stands dismissed. Consequently, W.A.(MD) SR No.74574 of 2025 stands rejected.

 
  CDJLawJournal