Allowed

R.Kamalanathan, v. a.Ramesh

Madras HC8 Jan 2021CRP/916/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In revision, the High Court observed the lower court erred in dismissing an application to reject a plaint filed for compensation against a former Tahsildar for denying issuance of community certificates. The Court held the earlier decree lacked jurisdiction, barring cause of action, rendering the suit not maintainable. This revision was allowed and the pre-delivery order closed.

What did the court decide?

The connected pre-delivery order was closed.

R.Kamalanathan, Vs a.Ramesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP(PD)No.916 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 22.12.2020

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 08.01.2021

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶7

CRP(PD)No.916 of 2016
CMP.No.5132 of 2016
(Through Video Conferencing)
R.Kamalanathan, Personal Assistant
District Supply Office, Dharmapuri
now working as Deputy Collector
CMWSSB, Chennai Petitioner
Vs
A.Ramesh Respondent

¶8

Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 16.10.2015, passed in IA.No.489 of 2014 in OS.No.33 of 2013, by the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶9

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 16.10.2015, passed in IA.No.489 of 2014 in OS.No.33 of 2013, by the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶10

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Defendant is the Petitioner

¶11

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

CRP(PD)No.916 of 2016

¶13

and the Respondent is the Plaintiff. The present suit was filed against the Petitioner for compensation with interest, for having denied the issuance of community and nativity certificates, pursuant to the judgement and decree passed in the earlier suit filed for declaration of community and for direction to issue community and nativity certificates. In the present suit, the present application was filed by the Defendant to reject the plaint. By the impugned order, the court below had dismissed the said application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Defendant.

¶14

This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.

¶15

According to the Petitioner, the alleged act in denying the issuance of certificates, was done by him in his official capacity and as such, no suit would lie against him as an individual, seeking compensation and even the earlier suit ought not to have been entertained since the civil court has no jurisdiction to issue such directions for issuance of community certificate and hence, no cause cause of action would arise against him.

¶16

It is the stand of the Respondent that after passing of the judgement and decree in the earlier suit filed for declaration of community and for direction to issue community and nativity certificates, the Petitioner had denied issuance of the said certificates and only after his transfer, the Respondent was able to get the said certificates from his successor, after two years, which caused prejudice to him and hence, the Petitioner is liable to pay the compensation. Reliance is placed on 2020 1 CTC 275 (Loom Tex Exports

¶17

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶18

CRP(PD)No.916 of 2016

¶19

Vs. Thanneer Panthal Dharma Chathiram) and 2018 4 CTC 206 (Chhotanben Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar).

¶20

It is seen from the records that the earlier suit filed for declaration of community and mandatory injunction to direct the concerned Tahsildar, to issue the said certificates, by the Respondent was decreed partly, directing the Petitioner, who was working as the Tahsildar, Dharmapuri, to issue the said certificates.

¶21

Pursuant to the judgement and decree passed in the earlier suit, the said certificates were not issued during the tenure of the Petitioner. After transfer of the Petitioner, the Respondent was able to get the said certificates from the then Tahsildar after two years. The present suit was filed by the Respondent, seeking compensation against the Petitioner, for having denied to issue the certificates during his tenure.

¶22

It is seen that the earlier suit was filed against the Petitioner in his official capacity. But, pursuant to the judgement and decree passed in the earlier suit, when the acts in denying the issuance of the certificates were done by the Petitioner in his official capacity on behalf of the Department concerned,

¶23

the present suit was filed against the Petitioner, in his individual capacity, without impleading the authorities concerned. Hence, the present suit, as framed, is not maintainable, in other words, the Plaintiff should have filed the suit against the Defendant in his official capacity. If the Plaintiff has any grievance, it should be only against the concerned Department, which is responsible for issuance of such certificates and not against the individual.

¶24

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶25

CRP(PD)No.916 of 2016

¶26

Srcm

¶27

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶28

It is pertinent to note that the court below, which had directed for issuance of the said certificates, has no jurisdiction to issue such directions and hence, no cause of action can be attributed to the Petitioner herein. In such view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that without considering those aspects, the court below had erroneously dismissed the application to reject the plaint by the impugned order, which cannot be sustained and warrants interference by this Court.

¶29

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected MP is closed.
08.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Srcm
To

¶30

The Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri

¶31

Pre-Delivery Order in CRP(PD)No.916 of 2016

¶32

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

R.Kamalanathan, v. a.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kamalanathan, v. a.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.a.Saravanan Vs State of Tamilnadu

Chittu Alias Palaniappan (died) Vs Narayana Gounder

Marasamy,S/O.Palanisamy Vs State of Tamilnadu

Palanisamy Vs Vijayakumar

K. Gunaseelan Vs Dr. Chelladurai

K. Purushothaman Vs M/S. Alankar Fancy and General