From

Dr.vai. Shanmugam. P hd., B.L.,

State deputy general secretary, Manmalai Post,

Chinna Salem Taluk,

Villuppuram District,

Pin-606 207.

E.Mail.svpadayatchi@gmail.com.

Cell No: 9442780744.

:8778133386.

To

His Excellency governor of Tamil Nadu,

Governors Secretariat,

Raj Bhavan, Chennai-600 022.

His Excellency,

Sub: Petition Humbly submitted under Art.154 For necessary legal

actions Against the inactions of The registrar general, High court of
madras,Chennai-600 104.On my complaint com petition dated
07/04/2014, received by him on 18/07/14 And 17/02/15, from the
presidents Secretariats through Tamil Nadu Government and union
government Respectively, for legal actions against the Judgment
pronounced arbitrarily with Patent errors in my S.A NO.898 of 1997(civil)
by The justice M. Duraisamy, madras High court. And also for actions to
protect My rights guaranteed under Art.14,Art.21 And Art.300 A. in order
to remove the patent error in the S.A(civil) No.898 of 1997_ regarding.

Ref: No Particular Date

1. My complaint com petition 07/04/2014

Submitted to this Excellency,

President of India & others.
2. High court judgment issued in my 14/09/2010

S.A.(civil)No:898/1997

3. The stay order (MP.No.8724 of 1997 16/01/1998

4. The interim in juncture order issued

In my favor by the H.C.MP.No.21814 06/03/2000

Of 1999.

5. Judgment issued against my SLP(civil)

No.7365/2011. 23/07/2012

6. The dismissive order issued against the

Sub court judge-G.O(2D) No.272Home 16/12/199

(court A) Department.

7. My Review petition SR.No.82314 of

2013 filed in the H.C of Madras. 17/092013

8. R.O.C. No.3244(F.A)2015/RTI. Received

From the H.C of madras. 17/03/2016

9. R.O.C. No.3244(F.A)2015/RTI. Received

From the H.C of madras. 30/09/2016

10. Letter No.1343/2014-1- Public special

A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 18/07/2014

11. My complaint to the registrar (judicial) 09/12/2016

12. My reminder to the registrar (judicial) 30/03/2017

13. My complaint to the registrar(vigilance) 09/12/2016

14. My reminder to the registrar(vigilance) 30/03/2017

1.In my second appeal (civil) No.898 of 1997, filed at the high court of madras, My father(1)
R.Vaiyapuri Padayatchi (2) My Mother V.Palaniyammal and (3) Myself V.Shanmugham are the
appellant defendants and chinnadurai S/O Muniya Padayatchi ,Chinnammal W/O Muniya
Padayatchi are the respondent plaintiffs.

2.The Chinnadurai. M filed original suit (OS.No.138 of 1987) at munsiff court, Kallakkurichi-606
202, regarding my family land 1.96 cents situated in our manmalai Village Pin: 606 207 at the
survey No.59/4.2.94 cents. The suit was dismissed on 09/08/1991 and the judgment and
decree have been pronounced by the honble judge in favor of us, the defendants and against
the plaintiffs.

3.Then, the M.chinnadurai filed appellate suit, A.S.(civil) No.39 of 1996 at sub court,
Kallakkurichi and got judgement and decree on 15/11/1996 in his favor by amending his
plaint against the CPC order VI and rule 17, In the judgment, the appeal court completely
reversed all the findings of the trial court using the unlawful amendment in the plaint.

4.Later the sub court judge, Honble Vasantha soundre pandiyan was dismissed from her
judicial service on 16/12/1999 by the government of tamil nadu, When she had been under
suspension from 20/09/1997 for her grave charge of corruption and misconduct During the
period from 12/07/1996 to 13/08/1997. Hence, the judgment and decree issued in the
S.A.No.39 of 1996 have been issued only during the period of grave allegations like corruption
and misconduct on the relevant sub court justice, Honble vasanta sounder pandiyan
.(Ref.No.6).

5.Aggrieved By the judgment and decree pronounced by the notorious justice, My father
R.Vaiyapuri Padayatchi filed the second appeal No.898 of 1997 at the high court of madras
under C. P .C .sect 100(1) raising Three substantial questions of law involved in the lower
appellate courts judgment, as per CPC sect.100(3).Accepting the involvement of the
substantial questions of law and considering their importance, the high court of madras
immediately issued the stay order (M.P.No.8724 of 1997 on 06/01/1998) and even the interim
injuncter order (M.P.No.21814 of 1999 on 06/03/2000) against the respondent plaintiffs. Both
these order have been issued by the honble Mr.Justice. P.Sathasivam (ex.C.J.of
S.C)..(Ref.No.324.).

6.Nevertheless, when the S.A.No.898 of 1997 came before honble Mr.Justice M. Duraisamy for
final hearing, He gave judgment and decree arbitranily with Patent error on 14/09/2010, not
considering even any one of the three admitted substantial questions of law for logical
argument and conclusion as per the procedural law C.P.C.sect.100(5) order XIV, rule 2(1). But
the C.P.C.sect.100(5) clearly says that The appeal shall be heard only on the questions so
formulated and the respondent shall at the hearing of appeal be allowed to argue that the case
doesnt involve such questions.

7.The honble Mr.justice M.Duraisamy has not arrived any logical conclusion based on the
logical argument made under each and every substantial questions of law. But, he has himself
simply, arbitrarily concluded in his judgment (16th paragraph) saying I find no ground much
less substantial question of law to interfere with judgment and decree of the lower appellate
court.(Ref.No.2).

8.Thus the honble Mr.Justice, M.Duraisamy has violated the Procedural law, against our
Art.21. Consequently his judgment and decree pronounced in my S.A.No.898 of 1997 are
procedurally Ultra vise and also are with Patent error .This is clear cut violation of my
fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.14, Which guaranteed Equality before law and equal
production of law and also violated of Art.21.which says, No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and It also violates my
property right under Art.300A. Consequently his judgment & decree(order) issued in my
S.A.No.898 0f 1997 are rull and void as per the Art.13(2) and 13(3) of our Constitutional law.

9.Over and above, the honble Mr.Justice M.duraisamy refused to accept my condonatur
petition for 1023 days delay, and dismissed my review petition S.R.No.82314 of 2013
(ref.no:7) filed under C.P.C.sect.114 with clear cut logical arguments under each and every
substantial question of law (ref.no:7,page no.02-03) not having any interest and duty
consciousness in removing the Patent error in his our judgment and in upholding justice and
Rule of law. Moreover he has failed to understand the reasonable reason for the 1023, delays
in filing the Review petition after the dismissal of my special leave petition
(S.L.P)(civil).No.7365 of 2011 inlimine on 28/03/2011 (ref.no:5).

10.Aggrieved by the decisions of the Honbie justice Mr.m.Duraisany, I have already submitter
complaint cum petition deted 07/04/2014 . (ref No.01). to His Excellency president of India,
The Honble prime minister of India The Honble chief Justice of India and to the Honble
union minister of law & Justice , with all necessary Plocuments Among then petition , only two
petitions have been received by the Registrar general of High court of madras, one from the
presidents secretariate through Tamil Nadu government on 18/07/2014.and another one
from the union ministry of law & Justice on 17/02/2015. For actions . Nevertheless, There two
petitions with grave charges like patent errors violation of basic Haman rights Art 14, Art 21 and
property right Art 300A, have been kept lodged as per the information received from the high
court RTI.(Ref:No:8&9) by the learnt register general.

11.Affected by the inactions, by the registrar general, I have filed already complaint about the
inordinary inactions on m petitions with grave charges, to the registrar (judicial) and to the
registrar (vigilance) of madras high court on 09/12/2016 and sent reminders also to them on
30/03/2017 (ref no: 10&11) b Speed post.

12.Hence, having enclosed herewith Xerox copy of all relevant documents, judgment, orders,
review petition, complaint cum petition date 07/04/2014, and complaints for your valuable
attension and consideration, I humbly pray that necessary order may be kindly issued to
appropriate judicial administrator or authority to investigate and serutinize the patent error
involved in the judgment S.A (civil ).No:898 of 1997 (mentioned in my petition dated
07/04/2014) in order to take legal actions to issue me error free judgment and decree in my
S.A.(civil0 No:898 of 1997 and other necessary orders to uphold justice in our nation and to
render justice to my family.

Thanking you,

Place: Yours faithfully,

Date:

(complainant)

I, Shanmugham vaiyapuri padayatchi aged 57 do hereby solemnely affirm

that the content in the paragraphs from 01 to 12 are true and correct.

Place:

Date:

(complainant)