R.Maharajan Poosari Vs P.C.R.Chellaperumal Poosari

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar to dispose the I.A.No.01 of 2025 in A.S.No.39 of 2025 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner	: Mr.G.Thalai Mutharasu Mr.A.L.Kannan
For R1	: Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Kannan
For R2	: Mr.Ilamugil
For R4 to 6	: Mr.D.R.Sivakumar for Mr.V.Karuna
For R3	: Mr.N.Dilipkumar

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to

¶24

the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, to dispose of I.A.No.01 of 2025 in A.S.No.39 of 2025 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

CRP(MD). No.3530 of 2025

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

¶29

submitted that I.A.No.01 of 2025 in A.S.No.39 of 2025 has been filed seeking an ex-parte ad interim order of stay of execution of the decree, pending disposal of the said interlocutory application and for stay of execution of the decree, dated 27.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sattur. The learned counsel confined his submission to the limited relief that a direction may be issued to the first appellate Court to dispose of I.A.No.01 of 2025 within a stipulated time.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 submitted

¶31

that the first respondent is interfering with the administration of the temple and the due course of justice.

¶32

The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that originally the suit was instituted by a single plaintiff against as many as 89 defendants.

¶33

The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

CRP(MD). No.3530 of 2025

¶37

the interlocutory application is yet to be disposed of and that the appeal is crucial for continuation of the suit proceedings; hence, they are entitled to seek interim injunction.

¶38

Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed only to prolong the tenure of the revision petitioner as Managing Trustee of the temple, whose term has already expired on 22.11.2025 and to conduct elections among the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 without giving effect to the decree passed after full-fledged trial, in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.527 of 2010 etc., batch, dated 21.02.2011.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶40

This Court is of the view that several infirmities have been

¶41

pointed out in the interlocutory application. Unless and until such defects are rectified, the application for injunction cannot be considered. Leaving all the contentious issues open to be decided by the first appellate Court,

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

CRP(MD). No.3530 of 2025

¶45

the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, is

¶46

directed to examine the infirmities pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, consider all issues on merits and dispose of I.A.No.01 of 2025 in A.S.No.39 of 2025 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47