Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

D.Arun vs the Commissioner

D.ARUN vs The Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Aug 29, 2025
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1891391

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/22626/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D.ARUN

Respondent

The Commissioner

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 29.08.2025coramthe hon'ble mr.manindra mohan shrivastava, chief justice and the hon'ble mr.justice sunder mohan d.arun : petitionerversus2.d.ponvel : respondents prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to permanently close all the windows and open spaces windows with bricks and cement permanently in the petitioner side area in the four floors building constructed and to remove the last floor building including the handle wall in the four floors building constructed based on the representation dated 13.09.2024. for petitioner : mr.d.arun, petitioner-in-person for respondents : mr.ra. gopinath, standing counsel, for respondent no.1 mr.m.balaji, for respondent no.2order(order of the court was made by the hon'ble chief justice) the grievances raised in this petition are disputes which are purely civil in nature, involving allegation of encroachment on private land of the petitioner and also allegation of causing damage by the second respondent.2. as far as disputes of civil nature are concerned, the petitionershould have approached the civil court rather than filing a writ petition. any allegation of commission of offence, if not properly addressed to by the police authorities, could be brought by way of complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. the petition stands closed. there will be no order as to costs. consequently, wmp no.26885 of 2025 is also closed.(manindra mohan shrivastava, cj.) (sunder mohan, j.) index : yes/no neutral citation : yes/no tar to the hon'ble chief justice andsunder mohan, j.(tar)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.08.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN D.Arun : Petitioner

versus

2.D.Ponvel : Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to permanently close all the windows and open spaces windows with bricks and cement permanently in the petitioner side area in the four floors building constructed and to remove the last floor building including the handle wall in the four floors building constructed based on the representation dated 13.09.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Arun, Petitioner-in-person For Respondents : Mr.RA. Gopinath, Standing Counsel, for respondent No.1 Mr.M.Balaji, for respondent No.2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The grievances raised in this petition are disputes which are purely civil in nature, involving allegation of encroachment on private land of the petitioner and also allegation of causing damage by the second respondent.

2. As far as disputes of civil nature are concerned, the petitioner

should have approached the civil court rather than filing a writ petition. Any allegation of commission of offence, if not properly addressed to by the police authorities, could be brought by way of complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. The petition stands closed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.26885 of 2025 is also closed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (SUNDER MOHAN, J.) Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar To THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

(tar)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial