Single judge dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the District Munsif's order allowing the plaintiff to file a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of temple worshipers, finding no sufficient ground to interfere.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2238 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 06.12.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2238 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.11593 of 2019
1.A.Balasundar
Vs.
Arulmighu Sudalai Madasamy Thirukovil, through its Varithar, N.Murugan,
.. Respondent
Prayer : This Civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order as passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District made in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.196 of 2019 dated 16.08.2019 of allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 r/w. 151 for the grant of leave to file a representative suit forthwith.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sankara Pandian For Respondent : Mr.B.Anandan
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
2.This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.196 of 2019 dated 16.08.2019, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
3.The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.196 of 2019 on behalf of the worshipers of Arulmighu Sudalai Madasamy Thirukovil, for a prayer of injunction. In the suit, the respondent herein has filed a petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1 / 3
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2238 of 2019
in I.A.No.2 of 2019 to permit him to file a suit in the representative capacity. That petition was allowed by the trial Court. Against which, the petitioners preferred this revision petition.
4.The brief substance of the petition in I.A.No.2 of 2019 is as follows:
The petitioners and other worshipers of the temple were conducting festivals and regular poojas in the temple and the suit was filed for a prayer of injunction against the defendants and that there are number of persons worshipping the temple and that the petitioner is to be permitted to represent the worshipers.
5.The brief substance in the counter is as follows:
In the short cause title, it is stated that the worshippers of the temple is represented by Murugan. In long cause title, it is stated that he is appearing in the representative capacity. The temple was maintained by the defendants, who are members of the family of Chinnakannu and others. They never give any authorisation to the plaintiff to represent them. The other worshipers did not give any permission or documents in favour of the plaintiff to represent them. Only with an intention to harass the defendants, this petition is filed and the petition is to be dismissed.
6.The trial Court after hearing both sides, allowed the petition. Against which, the revision petitioners filed this petition.
7.On the side of the revision petitioners, it is stated that it is wrong to state that the temple has so many devotees and they pay the amount for the maintenance of the temple and in addition to that one Natarajan family and general public are the devotees and they participated in temple festival, daily poojas and worship and all of them could not be impleaded in the suit. Hence, the suit was filed in the representative capacity.
8.On the side of the revision petitioners, it is further stated that the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit either for himself or on behalf of the others. It is not stated whether the other devotees had given any written consent for filing the suit. The respondent is not clear whether he is representing the temple or the worshipers of the temple. The order is to be set aside.
9.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that before ordering the I.A. Petition, the Court has ordered notice by way of Tomtom, by its order dated 14.06.2018 and there was no objectors before the Court. Except the defendants, no other persons come forward to object the petition. The order of the trial Court is proper and there is no necessity to set aside the order.
2 / 3
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2238 of 2019
10.The contention of the revision petitioner is that the family of Chinnakannu and any of the public worshipers did not give consent. In fact if any third party is aggrieved by the order, they can approach the trial Court and can file a petition to implead themselves as parties to the suit. Hence, the contention of the revision petitioners is not acceptable. It is seen that the petitioner filed a suit for an order of injunction against the defendants in the representative capacity of the worshipers of Arulmighu Sudalai Madasamy Thirukovil. It is also seen that the trial Court has passed an order of notice by way of Tomtom and that except the defendants no other objectors were present.
11.In the above circumstances, there is nothing sufficient enough to interfere in the order passed by the lower Court. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AD-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Mrn
To
The Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.
+1 CC to Mr.B.ANANDAN, Advocate ( SR-103860[F] dated 06/12/2019 )
+1 CC to Mr.S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM, Advocate ( SR-104252[F] dated 10/12/2019 )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2238 of 2019 06.12.2019
VB(22.01.2020) 3P 4C
3 / 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an error in granting leave to the plaintiff to file a representative suit in the capacity of temple worshipers.
Whether the absence of written consent from other worshipers necessitates setting aside the lower court's order.
Whether the revision petitioners have sufficient grounds to interfere with the order allowing the representative suit.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
1.A.Balasundar
2.Damotharan
3.Kailasam
4.Jayaraj
5.Sankar Ganesh
6.Natarajan
R. Tharani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
