Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 108
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. OF 2026
arising out of DIARY NO. 37381 OF 2024)
V.ANIMA MALAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
S. AADHAVAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein was arrayed as respondent No.6
in W.P. No.9715/2023. The prayers that were sought by
the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) before the
High Court, read as under:
“10.1. therefore pray that this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or
any other writ or direction, writ petition
praying for an issue of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any
other writ or direction, in the nature of WRIT,
directing the respondents 2 to 5 to demolish
th
the unauthorized constructions made by the 6
respondent for an extent of 5.33 cents
constructed without building plan approval at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:16:42 IST
Reason:
1
Doo No.12, Ariyalur-Thanjavur main Road,
Thiumanur, Ariyalur 621 715 in Old Survey
No.33/14 D, New Survey No.33 16DIC (as per
patta dated 17.09.2020), Thirumaur Village,
Ariyalur Thaluk and Ariyalur District, within a
time frame as may be filed by this Hon’ble
Court and for consequential orders within a
time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble
Court as such further or other orders and
thereby render justice.”
3. The said writ petition was disposed of by order
dated 29.03.2023 without issuance of any notice to
respondent No.6 therein/appellant herein.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said
Writ Petition, the appellant herein preferred Review
Application No.62/2024 before the High Court. The said
Review Petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench
of the High Court on 22.07.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant as well as respondent No.1 herein are
related to each other; that in fact original suit being
O.S. No.7/2022 has been filed by respondent No.1 herein,
inter alia, as against the appellant herein and is
pending adjudication before the learned District Judge,
Ariyalur. The reliefs sought for in the said suit read
as under:
2
“a. Pass a preliminary decree for the partition
of suit properties 40 cents of land (Item
No.02) and 2x2/3 cent [(‘8’ kuzhi) (Item
No.03)] house site (“A” Schedule property,
mentioned/notified in family arrangement
deed dated 26.05.1993) into two equal
shares. Allot one share to the plaintiff &
th
the 5 defendant and grant separate
possession in the suit properties;
b. Declare that the Settlement Deed dated
st
15.07.2016 executed by the 1 defendant in
nd rd
favour 2 & 3 defendants in Document
No.1358/2016 registered at the office of
SRO, Kizapazuvur as null and void and not
binding on the plaintiff; (Item No.01)
c. Declare that the Settlement Deed dated
nd rd
08.11.2019 executed by the 2 and 3
th
defendants in favour 4 Defendant in
Document No2605/2019 registered at the
office of SR,< Kizapazuvur as null and void
and not binding on the plaintiff,
d. Mandatory injunction, directing the
defendants to demolish and remove the
obstruction caused to shops constructed on
the 15 feet pathway and access to the
plaintiff’s house property more fully
described as suit item IV and shown as
“ABCD” in the rough sketch attached to the
plaint.
e. Award cost of the suit, and
f. Such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and necessary in the
circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.”
6. When the said civil suit is pending adjudication,
respondent No.1 herein to shortcut the suit proceedings
3
filed the writ petition and the said writ petition was
allowed even without issuance of notice to the appellant
herein.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in
the first place the writ petition was not at all
maintainable when a full-fledged suit between the
parties was pending adjudication before the Trial Court.
It was contended that the filing of the writ petition
itself was an abuse of the process of the High Court and
of law when the suit was pending adjudication between
the parties in respect of the very same property
involved both in the civil suit as well as in the writ
petition. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned
orders may be set aside and the writ petition may be
dismissed. Secondly, the impugned orders passed by the
High Court are in violation of the principles of natural
justice inasmuch as the appellant was not heard in the
matter.
8. When we queried learned counsel for respondent No.1
with regard to the pendency of the suit filed by the
said respondent as well as filing of the writ petition,
he fairly submitted that no doubt a suit was filed and
is pending adjudication but the prayers sought for in
4
the writ petition are distinct, although in respect of
the very same property. Merely because notice was not
issued by the High Court to the appellant herein cannot
be a ground for setting aside the impugned order. She
therefore submitted that there is no merit in this
appeal. In the context of the submissions made by
learned counsel for respondent No.1, other respondents
also supported the impugned order.
9. In the backdrop of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the
prayers sought by respondent No.1 herein in the suit as
well as the prayers sought by the very same respondent
in the writ petition; the prayers concern the very same
property, prayer (d) in the suit and in the writ
petition are common. The first respondent herein would
not have a shortcut in the adjudication of his case by
seeking prayer (d) in the suit in the form of a prayer
for Writ of Mandamus in the writ petition. The first
respondent could not have agitated this relief before
the two forums.
10. We find that the filing of writ petition was an
abuse of the process of law. Hence, the writ petition is
dismissed and consequently, the impugned orders are also
5
set-aside.
11. These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
12. We however observe that this order would not come
in the way of the suit being tried in accordance with
law and on its own merits.
13. All subsequent actions taken by the respondent-
authorities pursuant to the orders of the High Court
stand quashed.
14. The appellant is at liberty to utilise the suit
premises subject to the result of the suit.
15. However, we refrain from imposing any cost on the
writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 20, 2026
6
2026 INSC 108
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. OF 2026
arising out of DIARY NO. 37381 OF 2024)
V.ANIMA MALAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
S. AADHAVAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein was arrayed as respondent No.6
in W.P. No.9715/2023. The prayers that were sought by
the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) before the
High Court, read as under:
“10.1. therefore pray that this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or
any other writ or direction, writ petition
praying for an issue of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any
other writ or direction, in the nature of WRIT,
directing the respondents 2 to 5 to demolish
th
the unauthorized constructions made by the 6
respondent for an extent of 5.33 cents
constructed without building plan approval at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:16:42 IST
Reason:
1
Doo No.12, Ariyalur-Thanjavur main Road,
Thiumanur, Ariyalur 621 715 in Old Survey
No.33/14 D, New Survey No.33 16DIC (as per
patta dated 17.09.2020), Thirumaur Village,
Ariyalur Thaluk and Ariyalur District, within a
time frame as may be filed by this Hon’ble
Court and for consequential orders within a
time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble
Court as such further or other orders and
thereby render justice.”
3. The said writ petition was disposed of by order
dated 29.03.2023 without issuance of any notice to
respondent No.6 therein/appellant herein.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said
Writ Petition, the appellant herein preferred Review
Application No.62/2024 before the High Court. The said
Review Petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench
of the High Court on 22.07.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant as well as respondent No.1 herein are
related to each other; that in fact original suit being
O.S. No.7/2022 has been filed by respondent No.1 herein,
inter alia, as against the appellant herein and is
pending adjudication before the learned District Judge,
Ariyalur. The reliefs sought for in the said suit read
as under:
2
“a. Pass a preliminary decree for the partition
of suit properties 40 cents of land (Item
No.02) and 2x2/3 cent [(‘8’ kuzhi) (Item
No.03)] house site (“A” Schedule property,
mentioned/notified in family arrangement
deed dated 26.05.1993) into two equal
shares. Allot one share to the plaintiff &
th
the 5 defendant and grant separate
possession in the suit properties;
b. Declare that the Settlement Deed dated
st
15.07.2016 executed by the 1 defendant in
nd rd
favour 2 & 3 defendants in Document
No.1358/2016 registered at the office of
SRO, Kizapazuvur as null and void and not
binding on the plaintiff; (Item No.01)
c. Declare that the Settlement Deed dated
nd rd
08.11.2019 executed by the 2 and 3
th
defendants in favour 4 Defendant in
Document No2605/2019 registered at the
office of SR,< Kizapazuvur as null and void
and not binding on the plaintiff,
d. Mandatory injunction, directing the
defendants to demolish and remove the
obstruction caused to shops constructed on
the 15 feet pathway and access to the
plaintiff’s house property more fully
described as suit item IV and shown as
“ABCD” in the rough sketch attached to the
plaint.
e. Award cost of the suit, and
f. Such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and necessary in the
circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.”
6. When the said civil suit is pending adjudication,
respondent No.1 herein to shortcut the suit proceedings
3
filed the writ petition and the said writ petition was
allowed even without issuance of notice to the appellant
herein.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in
the first place the writ petition was not at all
maintainable when a full-fledged suit between the
parties was pending adjudication before the Trial Court.
It was contended that the filing of the writ petition
itself was an abuse of the process of the High Court and
of law when the suit was pending adjudication between
the parties in respect of the very same property
involved both in the civil suit as well as in the writ
petition. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned
orders may be set aside and the writ petition may be
dismissed. Secondly, the impugned orders passed by the
High Court are in violation of the principles of natural
justice inasmuch as the appellant was not heard in the
matter.
8. When we queried learned counsel for respondent No.1
with regard to the pendency of the suit filed by the
said respondent as well as filing of the writ petition,
he fairly submitted that no doubt a suit was filed and
is pending adjudication but the prayers sought for in
4
the writ petition are distinct, although in respect of
the very same property. Merely because notice was not
issued by the High Court to the appellant herein cannot
be a ground for setting aside the impugned order. She
therefore submitted that there is no merit in this
appeal. In the context of the submissions made by
learned counsel for respondent No.1, other respondents
also supported the impugned order.
9. In the backdrop of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the
prayers sought by respondent No.1 herein in the suit as
well as the prayers sought by the very same respondent
in the writ petition; the prayers concern the very same
property, prayer (d) in the suit and in the writ
petition are common. The first respondent herein would
not have a shortcut in the adjudication of his case by
seeking prayer (d) in the suit in the form of a prayer
for Writ of Mandamus in the writ petition. The first
respondent could not have agitated this relief before
the two forums.
10. We find that the filing of writ petition was an
abuse of the process of law. Hence, the writ petition is
dismissed and consequently, the impugned orders are also
5
set-aside.
11. These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
12. We however observe that this order would not come
in the way of the suit being tried in accordance with
law and on its own merits.
13. All subsequent actions taken by the respondent-
authorities pursuant to the orders of the High Court
stand quashed.
14. The appellant is at liberty to utilise the suit
premises subject to the result of the suit.
15. However, we refrain from imposing any cost on the
writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 20, 2026
6