Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Appeal in Document Registration Dispute, Emphasizes “Writ Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Statutory or Civil Remedies; Effective Alternative Remedy Available Through Civil Court”

Court’s Decision:
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal, finding that the appellant has an effective alternative remedy available through the civil court. The court granted liberty to the appellant to pursue an appropriate application before the competent civil court for relief.

Facts:
The appellant, an unsuccessful writ petitioner, had sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent (District Registrar) to resolve an appeal related to a document registered by the second respondent (Sub Registrar). This document, executed by the third to ninth respondents, had been registered on April 7, 2016. The appellant’s writ petition was initially dismissed by a single judge, who relied on the Supreme Court’s principles under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Issues:
The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to relief through a writ petition when an alternative remedy was available through the civil court.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant contended that the writ petition should compel the first respondent to act on his appeal concerning the registration of a contested document, claiming a delay in administrative action.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents argued that the appellant had an alternative remedy under the civil law framework, which could address the registration dispute. They urged that the writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate forum for this matter, as civil remedies were available.

Analysis of the Law:
The court evaluated the applicability of Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, which pertains to the registration of documents and the judicial remedies available for disputes over such registration. The court referenced similar cases where the presence of an alternative civil remedy barred the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to its recent decision in M. Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration and others, which emphasized the availability of an effective alternative remedy through the civil courts. In that case, it was held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when civil law remedies are accessible.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court reasoned that the appellant should pursue the matter through the civil court, as writ jurisdiction is not designed to substitute for statutory or civil remedies, especially in administrative and registration disputes. The court underscored that civil courts are competent to provide effective and suitable resolutions for such issues.

Conclusion:
The court concluded by dismissing the writ appeal, underscoring that the appellant has a clear, alternative legal path through the civil court. It granted the appellant liberty to seek appropriate relief through civil proceedings.

Implications:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of alternative remedies, clarifying that writ jurisdiction is generally not suitable for cases where statutory or civil law remedies are available. It emphasizes the need for parties to pursue the civil law avenues for administrative registration issues before approaching the High Court under Article 226.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Accused, Citing Unexplained Delay and Malafide Intent: “Legal Process Should Not Be Abused for Personal Grudges”