-
by Admin
28 April 2026 1:00 PM
“You approached with unclean hands and misused the order — such conduct is highly condemnable”, Madras High Court has recalled its own order passed less than two months ago after finding that a flat owners’ association secured it by hiding critical facts and then weaponised it through misleading public notices. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed a review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC, set aside the Court’s earlier direction to the CMDA, and dismissed the original writ petition.
“This Court is of the view that the writ petitioner association, by not pleading the material facts and coming before this Court with an innocuous prayer, has attempted to misuse the order… The conduct is highly condemnable since they have intentionally concealed the material facts and failed to file the relevant documents,” the judge said.
The ‘Innocuous’ Prayer That Hid a Contractual Green Signal for Construction
The writ petition, filed in June 2025, sought only a direction to the CMDA to consider a representation dated 2 April 2025. Believing it to be a limited and non-contentious request, the Court at admission stage did not issue notice to the builder and simply directed the authority to hold an inquiry after hearing all sides.
But when the builder was summoned by CMDA, it discovered that the association had withheld documents showing it had contractually authorised the very construction it was seeking to stall. Clause 20 of the construction agreement executed by the association’s own president gave the builder discretion to amend plans, merge the property with neighbouring plots, utilise additional FSI/TDR and promised not to obstruct progress.
Association executive committee minutes from 31 July 2021 and 29 August 2021 recorded that after due diligence there was “no discrepancy” and “no issues in builder continuing the Block 4 – Phase 2 construction work… without disturbing normal lifestyle and safety of Phase 1 residents.”
Even the 20 May 2018 handover agreement confirmed that ingress and egress to Phase II would be through Phase I and that amenities would be common to both phases “without any objection or demur.” None of this reached the Court’s eyes during writ admission.
A Parallel Suit and a Public Narrative at Odds with the Pleadings
What also never found mention in the writ petition was that the association had already filed O.S. No. 74 of 2025 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, seeking to nullify a clause in the handover agreement and to restrain the builder from accessing common amenities. “Had this been brought to the notice of this Court, the parties would have been relegated to the civil court,” the judge observed.
Yet, after obtaining the 23 June order, the association issued public notices in newspapers as though it had challenged the CMDA’s planning permit and the building approval for Phase II — reliefs never sought in its petition. “The fact remains that the writ petitioner association only sought for an innocuous prayer… However, they gave an impression through public notice that the same were put to challenge,” the Court noted, terming it “a clear abuse of process of law.”
Error Apparent, Order Recalled
Justice Venkatesh concluded that the omissions and misrepresentations went to the root of the case: “The case in hand is a clear abuse of process of law… the writ petitioner association came before this Court with unclean hands, which, by itself, is sufficient to dismiss the said writ petition.” Finding an “error apparent on the face of the order,” the Court exercised its review jurisdiction, recalled the 23 June 2025 order, and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Date of Decision: 11 August 2025
