Madras High Court
K R Siddeswaran vs Tamil Nadu Soft Tennis Association on 19 December, 2024
C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
K R Siddeswaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Soft Tennis Association,
Rep by its President K Arjunan
2.K.Arjunan
3.Dr R Chitra
4.A Senthilkumar
5.M Sembannan
6.G Sivakumar
7. R Karthick
8.B Selva Lakshmanan
9.P Thaigarajan
10.A Nagarajan
11 K R Vijayakumar
1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
12 T Senthamarai Kannan
13. B.Pandiarajan
14.C Ramachandran
15.R.Vivekanandan
16.K Prabakaran
17.D Kandamoorthi
18.A Sasi Raja
19.M Aravind
20.Vasdath R Krishnan
21.M G Dhathatri
22.N Vasanth
23.S Sumathi, Manager,
State Bank of India,
SME Branch (13241),
No.84, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.
24.D Karunya
25.D Mouneswari
26.S Syed Hussain, PET Teacher,
Government High School,
2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
Poolavari Salem.
27.M Rajesan
28.District Registrar,
O/o.Registrar of Societies,
Chennai Central, Chennai 14.
29.M Mani Murugan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2023
passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.135 of 2016 on the file of the II
Additional District Judge, Salem and consequently, direct to implead the
proposed defendant in the above suit.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dhanush
for M/s.G.Bala and Daisy
For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
for Mr.T.Ganesan
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.135 of 2016, dated 04.11.2023.
3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
2.O.S.No.135 of 2016 is a suit for the following reliefs,
a) Declaring that the plaintiffs 2 to 20 are the duly elected members of the governing body of the 1st plaintiff;
b) Restraining the defendants 1 to 9 by means of a permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs 2 to 20 as the governing body of the 1st plaintiff;
c) Declaring that the defendants 1 to 9 are not duly elected members of the Executive Committee of the 1st plaintiff Society;
d) Restraining the defendants 1 to 9 by means of a permanent injunction from in any manner functioning as the governing body of the 1st plaintiff Society.
3.The defendants had entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement. Thereafter, they took out an application for rejection of plaint. This application in I.A.No.364 of 2016 came to be dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, on 07.12.2016. The order was not challenged by the defendants. Instead, they presented C.R.P. (PD.) No.3578 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024 of 2017 before this Court. The relief in the revision was to strike out the plaint itself. The revision came to be dismissed by this Court on 17.10.2022.
4.In the mean time, the defendants filed another application, on 18.08.2022, seeking rejection of plaint. The plea in the said application was that the suit is not maintainable before the District Court and that the Society cannot be represented by the elected Office Bearers.
5.A counter was filed by the plaintiffs. The plea of the plaintiffs was that there is no bar to file a suit before the District Court as Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not bar such institution.
6.After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge held that the provisions, that had been relied upon to show a bar by the defendants, namely, Sections 12, 27 and 28 of the Societies Registration Act r/w Rules 14, 17, 25 to 27 do not bar a suit. Consequently, the petitions came to be dismissed. The learned Trial Judge also took note of the fact that trial had 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024 commenced and therefore, the Court should not entertain the petition under Order 7 Rule 11. Hence this revision.
7.I heard Mr.Dhanush for M/s.G.Bala and Daisy for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.T.R.Rajaraman for Mr.T.Ganesan for the respondents.
8.It is submitted by Mr.Dhanush that the suit cannot be entertained before the learned District Judge on account of the fact that the suit has been valued at Rs.2,000/- and it is way below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.
9.Per contra, it is urged by Mr.T.R.Rajaraman that in terms of Section 2 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, a “Court” is defined to be the Madras City Civil Court, in the Presidency Town and elsewhere, it is the “District Court”. Since the suit relates to a Society, relying upon Section 2 (b), the plaint was presented before the District Court.
6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
10.Mr.T.R.Rajaraman points that the plaintiffs' evidence has been completed and this vexatious application came to be filed at the stage of the defendants' evidence. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the revision.
11.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the pleadings and the impugned order as well as the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
12.The word “Court” has been used not less than 18 times in the Societies Registration Act, including Section 2 (b). The Sections are 22, 41(3), 42, 44(6), 44(7) & 45 (2). The purpose of Section 2(b) is to define as to which “Court” the proceedings must be initiated with reference to the aforesaid sections, which include any challenge made to the orders passed under the Societies Registration Act. The Societies Registration Act does not deal with resolution of civil disputes. Those disputes are to be resolved only by the Courts.
7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
13.Furthermore, the Act also in certain circumstances permit a party to approach a regular Civil Court and not the “Court” as defined under Section 2 (b). Those sections are 36 (5) and 40 (4). This shows the idea not to confer the exclusive jurisdiction to the “Court” defined under section 2
(b). The reliefs, extracted above, are all covered under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. For the mere fact that for certain orders, the District Court had been conferred with the jurisdiction by the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, does not mean, even for enforcement of the Civil rights, the suit has to be presented only before the District Court.
14.For the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, it is the averments made in the plaint alone which matters. See, Sathappa Chettiar V.Ramanathan Chettiar, 1958 SCC 1024. The Court fee portion in Paragraph 22 of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiffs had valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.2,000/- only. If that be the situation, 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024 the learned District Judge does not possess the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, there is a risk that, in case a decree is passed by the District Court, it would be open to the defendants to plead that the decree has been passed by a Court, which does not have jurisdiction and therefore is a nullity (V.Kiransingh Vs. Chaman Paswan reported in AIR 1954 SC
340).
15.The plea raised by the civil revision petitioner that the suit is barred by the Societies Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder does not appeal to me. This is because, the right to an office is in dispute. The said right cannot be adjudicated by a Registrar under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act or by the District Court under the said Act as there is no provision enabling or empowering the District Judge to give such a relief. This relief should appropriately be granted only by a Civil Court as held by the Full Bench of this Court in CMS Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Vs. The District Registrar Cheranmahadevi and four others reported in (2005 ) 2 MLJ335 (FB). 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
16.In the light of the above discussions, while agreeing with the learned II Additional District Judge that the claim of the defendants that the suit is barred by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act is untenable. I have to hold that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. See Rajmohan V. Thiruvarur Kannada Sainigar Nala Munnetra Sangam, 2021 SCC Online Mad 16011. The appropriate Court to deal with the reliefs claimed is the District Munsif Court, Salem. Consequent with the discussions, while confirming the dismissal of the rejection of the plaint, the learned II Additional District Judge, is directed to return the plaint for its presentation before the appropriate Court. On such return, the learned District Munsif to whom the suit is transferred, shall number the suit forthwith. Since the plaint is being returned in terms of Order VII Rule 10, the evidence so far recorded cannot be relied upon by the learned District Munsif. He has to de novo conduct the trial. See, EXL Careers and anr V.Frankfinn Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667. 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
17.Mr.T.R.Rajaraman points out that the evidence of the plaintiffs had already been completed. This implies that the proof affidavit is already on record. The learned District Munsif need not reinvent the wheel and direct the plaintiffs to file a proof affidavit afresh. The proof affidavit already filed will be taken on record by him. The defendants will cross examine the plaintiffs on the proof affidavit so filed. The learned District Munsif shall take note of the fact that the President of the plaintiff Society is about 80 years old. Therefore, the suit shall continue with all expedition ensuring that the suit is heard atleast twice a week. The learned District Munsif is also requested not to grant unnecessary adjournments to either side and he shall ensure that the suit itself is disposed of on or before 30.04.2025.
18.Accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2023, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.135 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem, is confirmed and the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.
11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
sli 19.12.2024
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
NCC: Yes/No
To:
The II Additional District Judge,
Salem.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
sli
12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024
19.12.2024
13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis