{"id":159717,"date":"2002-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002"},"modified":"2014-11-11T05:05:25","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T23:35:25","slug":"chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Chennai Metropolitan … vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Chennai Metropolitan … vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          \n\n Dated:  05.04.2002\n\n Coram \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.  JUSTICE P.  SHANMUGAM             \n\n Civil Revision No.4154 of 2001  and C.M.P. No.22610 of 2001\n  and\n  Suo Motu Revision in reference to the Suits\n  pending before the City Civil Courts at Chennai\n\n Chennai Metropolitan Development \nAuthority, rep. by its\nMember Secretary,  \nGandhi Irwin Road, Chennai-8.                   ..  Petitioners\n\n                vs.\n\n 1. Abdur Rehman, \n   Hotel Nest International,\n   31, Gandhi Irwin Road,\n   Egmore, Chennai-8.\n\n2. The Corporation of Chennai,\n   rep. by its Commissioner,\n   Chennai-3.                                           ..  Respondents\n\n\nPRAYER :  Petition under section 115 of Act V of 1908  praying  the  High\nCourt  to  revise the Order of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,\nChennai dated 10.9.2001 made in I.A.  Nos.15149 and 11390 of 2001 in O.S. \nNo.4012 of 2001.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
           This petition coming on for orders as to  hearing,  upon
\nperusing the  petition  and  upon  hearing  the  arguments  of  Mr.  A.L.
\nSomayajulu, Senior Counsel on behalf of Mr.  V.   Perumal,  Advocate  for
\nthe Petitioners, and  of  Mr.    T.V.  Ramanujam, Senior Counsel, for the
\nfirst respondent in C.R.P.  No.4154 of 2001 and of Mr.  R.    Mohan,  Mr.
\nN.  Jayabalan, Mr.  P.B.   Ramanujam,  Mr.    K.    Venkataraman, Mr.  S.
\nSuresh Kumar, Mr.  S.   Mohan,  Mr.    D.S.    Rajasekaran,  Mr.     A.S.
\nKailasam, Mr.  K.M.  Venugopal,  Mr.    M.    Balasubramanian,  Mr.    S.
\nSivaraman and Mr.  P.  Sukumar, Advocates for the Respondents in the  Suo
\nMotu Revision, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the
\nCourt passed the following Order :-\n<\/p>\n
O R D E R <\/p>\n
        C.R.P.  No.4154 of 2001 was preferred by the Chennai Metropolitan
\nDevelopment  Authority  against  the interm order of injunction passed by
\nthe City Civil Court on the main plea that the suit filed against them is
\nbarred under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,
\n1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  It was submitted on behalf of
\nthe petitioner at that time that inspite of this specific bar, about  700
\nsuits  are  filed  against  the  notices issued under the Act and interim
\norders obtained without reference to the maintainability  of  the  suits.
\nIt  was  further  submitted  that  in  lieu  of ex parte orders passed by
\nvarious City Civil Courts, their whole object  of  providing  an  orderly
\nplanned development of the urban land is being defeated.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  In the light of the above submission, a suo motu revision was
\ntaken  by  against those suits pending and the records were called for by
\nan order dated 21.12.2001.  Notices to the counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs in those suits were ordered to be given on 8.3.20  02  and
\nthe matter was since adjourned for hearing the counsel and ultimately, it
\nwas heard on 28.3.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The  main  question that arises for consideration is whether
\nthe action taken by the Chennai  Metropolitan  Development  Authority  is
\nliable to  be  challenged in a civil court.  Section 101 of the Act reads
\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “101.  Bar of jurisdiction of Courts.  – Any decision or order of
\nthe Tribunal or  the  Government  or  the  planning  authority  or  other
\nauthority or of any officer under this Act shall subject to any appeal or
\nrevision  or  review  provided  under this Act, be final and shall not be
\nliable to be questioned in any Court of Law.”\n<\/p>\n
A plain reading of the Section leaves no room for doubt that  a  decision
\nor  order  of the planning authority shall not be liable to be questioned
\nin any court of law.  The argument of the counsel  on  the  side  of  the
\nrespondents is  twofold.    Firstly,  a  notices  issued under the Act is
\nneither an order nor a decision appealable or  revisable  and  therefore,
\nthey will  not  come  within the purview of Section 101.  Secondly, it is
\ncontended that the development of the building had been carried out  more
\nthan  three  years  earlier  and  therefore,  they  are excluded from the
\npurview of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   For  a  better  appreciation  of  these  submission,  it  is
\nnecessary   to   go   through   the   relevant  provisions  of  the  Act.
\n‘Development’ has been defined under Section 2(13) as to  mean  not  only
\nthe  carrying  out  of  the works contemplated as per the plan, but shall
\ninclude the carrying out of building or other operation in  or  over  the
\nland  or  the  making  of a material change in the use of any building or
\nland.  The proviso to this section excludes the  temporary  repair  work.
\nSection 49 of the Act deals with the application for permission.  Any one
\nintending  to  carry out any development in a land or building shall have
\nto make an application in writing to the appropriate  planning  authority
\nfor   permission  in  such  form  and  containing  such  particulars  and
\naccompanied by such documents as may be prescribed.   An  appeal  to  the
\nDirector  is  provided  for against the refusal to grant permission under
\nSection 76 of the Act.  A further appeal to the Tribunal under Section 77
\nand a revision to the District Court under Section 78  are  provided  for
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  If any development of land or building is carried out without
\nthe  permission  or if it is done unauthorisedly or done in contravention
\nof such permission, Section 56 empowers the removal of such  unauthorised
\ndevelopment by  the competent authority.  Before taking any decision, the
\nappropriate planning authority  has  to  serve  a  notice  on  the  owner
\nrequiring  him within a minimum of one month period to take such steps as
\nmay be  specified  in  the  notice.    If   the   notice   requires   the
\ndiscontinuance  of  any use of land or building, a notice shall be served
\non the occupier also.  The said notice issued under Section  56  readwith
\nSection 85 (for restoration) of the Act states that on inspection made on
\na  particular date, it was found that there was no approved plan and even
\nafter request for production of  the  approved  plan,  it  has  not  been
\ncomplied  with  and  therefore,  the  owner is requested to stop the work
\nimmediately and on complying with the request within three days from  the
\ndate of  receipt  of  the  notice, legal action will be taken.  A further
\nnotice in Form-I under Section 56 readwith Section 85 is given  requiring
\nthe demolition of the construction put up unauthorisedly without planning
\npermission and  after referring to the ‘ stop work’ notice.  The owner is
\ncalled upon to restore the land to its original state and on his  failure
\nto  do  so within 30 days, action will be followed under Section 56(5) of
\nthe Act.  Sub-section (3) of Section 56 says that any person aggrieved by
\nsuch notice may apply for permission under Section  49  of  the  Act  for
\nretention of the land or any building or works for the continuance of any
\nuse of the land or building to which the notice relates.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Sub-section  (4) says that on such application under Section
\n49, a notice issued under Section 56(1) shall not be  issued  in  effect,
\npending the  final  determination  of the application.  Section 57 of the
\nAct empowers to  stop  unauthorised  development  by  issuing  a  notice.
\nSection  79 says that any person aggrieved by any decision or order under
\nSection 49 or Section 54 may apply to  the  prescribed  authority.    The
\nDirector  is empowered to call for and examine the records of any officer
\nsubordinate to him on application, and the Government is  also  empowered
\nto  call  for  and  examine the records of the Director under Section 80.
\nThe Director is empowered to suspend any decision or  order  pending  the
\nrevision  and  Sub-section (2) says that no order shall be passed without
\nan opportunity being given to the concerned.  Section 81 provides  for  a
\nreview.   Section  82  empowers  the execution of the orders passed under
\nappeal, revision or review.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  By a reading of these provisions, it is  clear  that  for  an
\norderly  planned  development  of  the town and in the public interest, a
\nclear scheme has been evolved under variuos  provisions  of  the  Act  in
\nreference to  the  development  contemplated  under the Act.  Section 101
\nbars the jurisdiction of the court in clear terms  in  reference  to  the
\ndecision  or  order  of  the  Tribunal  or the Government or the planning
\nauthority or any other authority under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Therefore, any suit covering the issues  raised  relating  to
\nthe activities coming under the Act is expressly barred to be entertained
\nby the  civil  court.   Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure also, in
\nclear terms, says that no suit shall lie if it is expressly or  impliedly
\nbarred by  any  other enactment.  Therefore, it follows that in all cases
\nrelating to the development activity as defined under the Act, the  civil
\ncourt shall not have any jurisdiction.  The Act provides for a notice, an
\nappeal, a  revision  and  a  review by the authorities concerned.  If the
\ncivil courts have entertained a suit of a nature which comes  within  the
\nprovisions of  the  Act,  the said suit is clearly not maintainable.  The
\nplaint ought not to have been entertained in those cases.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Now, we will see whether the notices issued  in  these  cases
\ncome under the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Section  56  of the Act empowers the authorities to require
\nremoval of unauthorised development in the following cases :\n<\/p>\n
        (a) when development of land or building has been       carried
\nout without permission;\n<\/p>\n
        (b) in contravention of any permission;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (c) after revocation of permission;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (d) in contravention of the modification of permission.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The notice shall require, in cases specificed under clauses (a) to (  c),
\nto restore the land to its original condition and in cases of (b) or (d),
\nto secure  compliance  of  the  permission.   The notice can also require
\nunder Sub-section (2), the demolition or alteration of any building  work
\nwith discontinuance  of  any  use  of  land  or building.  Therefore, the
\nnotice contemplated under Section 56 of the Act is not a mere  notice  of
\ninformation,  but  it is a decision required to be taken if the condition
\nunder Sub-section (1) of Section 56 is fulfilled.  It also  empowers  the
\naction  that  has  to  be  called  upon  to  be  made in the said notice,
\nincluding demolition etc.  The notice is preceded by  the  decision  that
\nthe  ingredient  of  Section  49, Section 50, Section 5 4, Section 56 and
\nSection 57 are satisfied as the violations get  attracted.    Sub-section
\n(2) to Section 49 states the method of giving effect.  Sub-section (5) to
\nSection 49  provides  for  the  consequential  action.    Therefore,  the
\nargument of the counsel on behalf of the respondents  that  there  is  no
\ndecision so as to bar the jurisdiction of the court cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   However,  if  an  application  is made for permission under
\nSection 49 as per Sub-section (3), then the notice  shall  not  have  any
\neffect  pending  determination of the application as per Sub-section (4).
\nSection 80 of the  Act  provides  for  a  revision  by  the  Director  on
\napplication,  to  call  for  and  examine  the  records  of  any  officer
\nsubordinate to him.    The  said  provision  is  also  available  to  the
\nGovernment  to  call  for  and  examine  the  records  of  the  Director.
\nSub-section (3) empowers the Director or the Government  to  suspend  the
\nexecution of the decision or order pending disposal of the revision.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 provides
\nfor the planned and orderly development and use of  urban  land,  and  in
\norder  to  achieve  the  said  object,  it  has provided for a scheme and
\nmachinery for the control of development and use of the land.  Section 49
\nbegins with a prohibition as to the carrying out of  development  of  any
\nland  except  as  otherwise  provided  for,  and  only  after  making  an
\napplication  in  writing  to  the  appropriate  planning  authority   for
\npermission.  The duration of permission is provided for under Section 50.
\nThe removal  comes  only  on  the  failure  as  per  the Act.  Section 56
\nempowers to remove the unauthorised development.  As against the  refusal
\nto  grant  permission  under  Section 49, an appeal is provided for under
\nSection 79  of  the  Act.    A  revision  is  provided  for  against  the
\nproceedings taken  under  Section  80  of  the  Act.    The  remedies are
\navailable against any decision and the proceedings under the  Act.    The
\nprovisions  give  sufficient  safeguards and opportunity to the concerned
\neither to explain, comply or move  a  revision.    Section  56(1)  itself
\nprovides for  one  month’s time to take such steps.  The person aggrieved
\nhas a choice to apply for permission and get the  matter  postponed  till
\nthe final determination or file a revision against such a decision.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   On  the  contrary,  it  is common knowledge that inspite of
\nthese specific provisions, buildings are put up in violation of  the  Act
\nand civil  remedies  are  resorted  to, defeating the whole purpose.  The
\nauthorities are  to  wait  helplessly  only  to  see  the  lengthy  civil
\nproceedings being  dragged  on.    The  fact that there are seven hundred
\ncases on the removal of unauthorised development alone shows the enormous
\nburden or the deadlock created in the functioning of the Act.  The  whole
\nscheme is set at naught by side-stepping the available remedies under the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that the civil
\ncourt  shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting
\nsuits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly  barred.
\nIn  the present cases, the civil court’s jurisdiction is expressly barred
\nby Section 101 readwith Section 49, Section 56 and Section 80 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court  in  SHIV
\nKUMAR CHADHA VS.    MUNICIPAL  CORPORATION OF DELHI [1993 (3) S.C.C.  161
\ncan be referred to.  The Delhi High  Court  in  that  case  directed  the
\nMunicipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  to  issue  appropriate  notices to the
\nowners\/ occupiers\/builders of the buildings where  illegal  constructions
\nhave  been  made  with  liberty  to  file  fresh  building plans with the
\nCorporation by the owners etc.  The Corporation was directed by the  High
\nCourt  if  it  finds  that  the constructions are beyond the compoundable
\nlimits, then to seal the same and demolish it thereafter.  The High Court
\nfurther directed that no civil suit will be entertained by any  court  in
\nDelhi  in  respect  of  any  action  taken or proposed to be taken by the
\nCorporation with regard to the ceiling and or demolition of any  building
\nor any part thereof.  The lordships, after considering elaborately on the
\njurisdictional aspect of the civil court vis-a-vis the special enactment,
\nhave observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “According to us,
\n        (1)   The  court  should  not  ordinarily  entertain  a  suit  in
\nconnection  with  the  proceedings  initiated  for  demolition,  by   the
\nCommissioner, in  terms  of  Section  343(1) of the Corporation Act.  The
\ncourt should direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before the
\nappellate tribunal and then before the administrator in  accordance  with
\nthe provisions of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) The court should entertain a suit questioning the validity of
\nan order passed under Section 343 of the Act, only if the court is of the
\nprima  facie opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law because
\nof  any  “jurisdictional  error”  in  exercise  of  the  power   by   the
\nCommissioner or that the order is outside the Act.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
Their lordships held that the court can examine whether the dispute falls
\nwithin  the ambit of the Act, like for example, if materials are produced
\nalong with the plaint to show that the building in question is not within
\nthe Corporation limit, or that the constructions were made prior  to  the
\ncoming into  force  of the relevant provisions of the Act.  The court has
\nto look into these jurisdictional questions carefully before entertaining
\na civil suit, the  cognizance  of  which  is  specifically  barred  under
\nSection 101 of the Act.  With regard to the grant of temporary injunction
\nalso, their lordships issued the following directions :\n<\/p>\n
        “(i)  The court should first direct the plaintiff to serve a copy
\nof the application with a copy of the  plaint  along  with  the  relevant
\ndocuments  on  the counsel for the Corporation or any competent authority
\nof the Corporation and the order should be passed only after hearing  the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  If  the  circumstances  of  a case so warrant and where the
\ncourt is of the opinion, that the object of granting the injunction would
\nbe defeated by delay, the court should record reasons for its opinion  as
\nrequired  by proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, before passing an
\norder for injunction.  The  court  must  direct  that  such  order  shall
\noperate  only  for  a period of two weeks, during which notice along with
\ncopy of the application, plaint and relevant documents should  be  served
\non the competent authority or the counsel for the Corporation.  Affidavit
\nof  service of notice should be filed as provided by proviso to Rule 3 of
\nOrder 39 aforesaid.  If the Corporation has entered appearance, any  such
\nex  parte  order  of injunction should be extended only after hearing the
\ncounsel for the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) While passing an ex parte order  of  injunction  the  court
\nshall  direct  the plaintiff to give an undertaking that he will not make
\nany further construction upon  the  premises  till  the  application  for
\ninjunction is finally heard and disposed of.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
        16.  In  ANWAR  VS.  FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR
\n(A.I.  R.  1986 S.C.  1785), the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction
\nof the State Government (hearing authority under  Section  68(d)  of  the
\nM.V.   Act) is exclusive in character and it is not open to a civil court
\nto issue an order of injunction restraining the  hearing  authority  from
\nproceeding   with  the  case  and  exercising  his  statutory  functions.
\nWhenever statute uses the expression that a decision of an authority will
\nbe final, the jurisdiction of the civil court to go into the  correctness
\nor otherwise  of  the  question  is  taken away.  Where the statute gives
\nfinality  to  the  orders  of  a  Special  Tribunal,  the  civil  court’s
\njurisdiction  must  be  held  to be excluded insofar as the merits of the
\ncase are concerned.  In STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS.  MANJETI LAXMI KANTHA
\nRAO [2000 (3) S.C.C.  689], their lordships of  the  Supreme  Court  held
\nthat  the  test  adopted  in  examining  the  exclusion  of civil court’s
\njurisdiction is :\n<\/p>\n
        (1) whether the legislative intent to exclude  arises  explicitly
\nor by necessary implication ?  and
\n        (2)  whether  the  statute  in question provides for adequate and
\nsatisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved  by  an  order  made
\nunder it ?\n<\/p>\n
Where  a  statute  gives finality to the orders of the Special Tribunals,
\njurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be excluded if there  is
\nan  adequate  remedy  to  do what the civil courts would normally do in a
\nsuit.  However, this will not exclude cases where the provisions  of  the
\nparticular  Act  have  not  been  complied  with  or  when  the statutory
\nauthorities have not acted in conformity with the fundamental  principles
\nof judicial procedure.   In P.  NIRATHILINGAM VS.  ANNAYA NADAR [2001 (9)
\nS.C.C.  673], dealing with the Tamil  Nadu  Debt  Relief  Act  1980,  the
\nSupreme  Court  held  that  from  the  provisions  of  the  said Act, the
\nlegislative scheme is clear that the scheme is not to allow  interference
\nby any court with determination of the question of eligibility to receive
\nbenefit under the said Act and that the legislative intent is to vest the
\njurisdiction  with  the  statutory  authorities  to  the exclusion of the
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In order to maintain a suit,  the  plaintiff  has  to  prima
\nfacie  establish  that  the  notice\/order  is a nullity in the eye of law
\nbecause of any jurisdictional error.  The only argument advanced  by  the
\nrespondents  in  reference  to  this  aspect  is  that the development in
\nquestion has taken place three years earlier and  therefore,  the  notice
\nissued under  Section  56  of  the  Act cannot have any legal force.  The
\nSupreme Court also was conscious  of  the  fact  that  persons  who  make
\nunauthorised  construction  by  contravening or by violating the building
\nregulations often run to courts with the plea that the constructions were
\nmade prior to the coming into force of the Act and  that  no  notice  was
\nserved on  them  before  the  demolition order was made.  It is also well
\nknown that in most of the cities, building regulations have been  framed,
\nbut  still  it  has  been  discovered  that  constructions have been made
\nwithout any sanction or in contravention of the sanctioned plan and  that
\nsuch constructions  have  continued  without  any  intervention.    Their
\nlordships observed that there cannot be two opinions that the regulations
\nand bye-laws in respect of the buildings are meant to  serve  the  public
\ninterest.   However, in special cases where a jurisdictional error on the
\npart  of  the  Corporation  is  established,  a  suit  is   maintainable.
\nTherefore,  by  a mere statement that the construction is more than three
\nyears old, it will not take away  the  jurisdiction  of  the  authorities
\nunder the Act and it shall not confer the jurisdiction to civil courts in
\nsuch  cases  provided  the  jurisdictional  error  is atleast prima facie
\nestablished.  Otherwise, the very purpose of the  various  provisions  of
\nthe enactment will get defeated.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   The  573  suits are pending in various City Civil Courts of
\nChennai as against the notices issued and action  taken  under  the  Act.
\nWithout  looking  into  the  maintainability of the suits, they have been
\nentertained and interim  orders  of  injunction  obtained.    Though  the
\nrecords  have  been  called  for, it is not practicably possible for this
\ncourt to hear all the  parties  and  consider  the  issue.    This  court
\nconsiders  it  appropriate,  just  and  necessary  that  all the suits be
\nremanded to the City Civil Court to try the questions, viz.  whether  the
\ncivil  court  has  jurisdiction  and whether the bar created by the Tamil
\nNadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 will not apply to  the  case  as
\nthe  preliminary issue, and to deal with the suits in accordance with the
\ndecision on this issue, in the light of  the  observations  contained  in
\nthis order.    The  civil court shall pass appropriate orders, to vary or
\ndischarge the interim orders  granted,  if  the  same  had  been  granted
\ncontrary to the provisions of Order 39(1), (2) or 3A of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure, and the principle set out in paragraph 14 of this order, on or
\nbefore 26.4.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   As  the  suits  are  pending  in different courts, to avoid
\nfurther delay and for an expeditious disposal, it is hereby ordered that,
\n        Items 1 to 200 (Docket Nos.  vide page nos.42 to 82 of the  typed
\nset,  for  the  corrseponding  suit  numbers)  be  posted  before the III
\nAssistant Judge, Civil Court, Chennai;\n<\/p>\n
        Items 201 to 400 be posted before the IV  Assistant  Judge,  City
\nCivil Court, Chennai; and
\n        Items  401  to  573 be posted before the XI Assistant Judge, City
\nCivil Court, Chennai,<\/p>\n
and listed on 10.4.2002 and the same shall be disposed of  on  or  before
\n26.6.2002.   If  any  of  the  suits  had  already  been disposed of, the
\npetitioner is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.   The
\ncivil court may exclude some of the cases wherein the issue may not arise
\nfor consideration.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  C.R.P.    No.4154  of 2001 is remanded and posted before the
\nIII Assistant Judge, City Civil  Court,  Chennai  along  with  the  other
\nmatters  as  stated  above, for disposal in the light of the observations
\ncontained in this order.  No costs.  Consequently, the  connected  C.M.P.
\nis closed.    The  records  along  with  the  copy of this order shall be
\ndespatched immediately to the courts indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes                                            5th April, 2002.\nInternet :  Yes\n\nab\n\nNOTE TO OFFICE :  Issue a copy of this order today. \n\n\nSd\/..\n\n\nAssistant Registrar\n\n\n\/\/ TRUE COPY \/\/  \n\n\nSub Assistant Registrar (C.S.)\n\n\nTo\n1.  The Registrar,\nCity Civil Court,\nChennai-600 104. \n\n2.  The V.R.  Section,\nHigh Court,\nChennai. \nP.  SHANMUGAM, J.    \n\nPre-delivery Order in\nC.R.P.  No.4154 of 2001 etc.\n\nDelivered on\n05..04..2002\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Chennai Metropolitan … vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 05.04.2002 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM Civil Revision No.4154 of 2001 and C.M.P. No.22610 of 2001 and Suo Motu Revision in reference to the Suits pending before the City Civil Courts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChennai Metropolitan ... vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chennai Metropolitan ... vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-10T23:35:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chennai Metropolitan … vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T23:35:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3688,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Chennai Metropolitan ... vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T23:35:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chennai Metropolitan … vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chennai Metropolitan ... vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chennai Metropolitan ... vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-10T23:35:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chennai Metropolitan … vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T23:35:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002"},"wordCount":3688,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002","name":"Chennai Metropolitan ... vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T23:35:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chennai-metropolitan-vs-abdur-rehman-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chennai Metropolitan … vs Abdur Rehman on 5 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}