Madras High Court
Gurusubramanian vs / on 21 August, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.13841 & 12107 of 2025
C.R.P.(MD)No.2309 of 2025:
1.Gurusubramanian
2.V.M.Muthuramalingam
3.F.Vincent Jeyakumar
4.M.S.Radha Krishnan
5.A.Irulappan
6.T.V.Pandi
7.S.Ramadass
8.S.M.Savarimuthupillai
9.K.C.Selvakumar
10.K.Loganathamurugan
11.M.Balasundaram
12.Thayalan ...Petitioners
Vs.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
1.M.S.Sundaresan
2.The District Register (Administration),
District Register Office,
Thirupathur Town, Sivagangai Town,
Sivagangai District.
3.R.Boominathan
4.M.Saravanan
5.M.Govindaraja ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.40 of
2022 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 dated 28.03.2025, on the file of the learned
Subordinate Court, Paramakudi by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kishore Kumar
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.4 : Mr.B.Chakkaravarthy
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
C.R.P.(MD)No.2079 of 2025:
M.Govindaraja ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Paramakudi V.O.C. Matriculation School Educational Society,
(Reg No.24/2004) represented by its,
Secretary / Correspondent namely M.S.Sundaresan,
Door No.7/145, Madurai Mandapam Road,
Kattuparamakudi,
Paramakudi Town,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.Gurusubramanian
3.V.M.Muthuramalingam
4.F.Vincent Jeyakumar
5.M.S.Radha Krishnan
6.A.Irulappan
7.T.V.Muniyandi
8.R.Boominathan
9.S.Ramadass
10.S.M.Savarimuthupillai
11.K.C.Selvakumar
12.M.Saravanan
13.K.Loganathamurugan
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
14.M.Balasundaram
15.Thayalan
16.The District Register (Administration),
District Register Office,
Thirupathur Town, Sivagangai Town,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to call for the records in connection with the plaint in O.S.No.51
of 2019 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Paramakudi and struck off the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Kishore Kumar
For Respondents 3 to 15 : Mr.B.Chakkaravarthy
For Respondent No.16 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
C.R.P.(MD)No.2309 of 2025 has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.40 of 2022 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 dated 28.03.2025, on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Paramakudi. 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
2.C.R.P.(MD)No.2079 of 2025, has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.51 of 2019, on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Paramakudi.
3.Since both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common issue, these Civil Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)No.2079 of 2025 would submit that the petitioner is the fifth defendant in the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2019, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. The said suit was filed by the first respondent / plaintiff, challenging the election of the defendants. However, the period of election of the defendants itself is only three years and that initially, the election was conducted in the year 2019 and the period of three years is over in the year 2022 and the subsequent election was conducted and Form VII application was filed and the same was accepted. Thereafter, another election was conducted and Form VII was accepted. In the said situation, the suit which is pending before the trial Court has become infructuous, thereby, the petitioner has come up with the present Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.2079 of 2025, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.51 of 2019, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.
5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
5.In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [preently known as All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Amma) Vs. All india Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Puratchi Thalaivi Amma) reported in 2024 (1) CTC 287. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as follows:
“73.It may be open to the Second Plaintiff to file a suit afresh, but that cannot be a consideration for deciding whether this plaint should remain on the file or not. A we have already pointed out the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it will be open to the Court to put an end to a infructuous litigation at any stage of the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly held that under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 are not exhaustive and rejection can be on ground outside Order 7, Rule 11 of the Codeo of Civil Procedure also. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal and another, referred to supra, a totally vexatious or meritless or infructuous litigation shall not be retained on file and it has to be thrown out. In fact, in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., v. Machado Brothers and others, referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if a suit becomes infructuous due to certain subsequent events is nothing wrong in the suit being thrown out.6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
74. We may also usefully refer to the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Aupama Gupta and others v. Kuldeep Singh and others, 2014 SCC Online Del 7417, wherein the Delhi High Court had examined the issue relating to rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure very exhaustively and had observed that the rejection of plaint can be made on the ground that the litigation has become infructuous. If we are to examine the case on hand in the light of the precedents that have been cited at the bar, we will have to necessarily conclude that the suit as it stands today cannot be retained on the file as the suit espouses the right of a splinter group, that was created by an Interim Order of the Election Commission, which has ceased to be in existence upon the Final Orders having been passed. We are, therefore, unable to fault the Trial Court for having rejected the Plaint.”
6.Per contra, learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that the very same election for submitting Form VI and Form VII applications was challenged before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24061 of 2019 and this Court by its order dated 20.06.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition, without setting aside the Form VI and Form VII applications. As against the same, a Writ Appeal came to be filed by one of the defendants namely Alagu Sundaram in W.A. 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025 (MD)No.1631 of 2025 and the same was disposed of, by issuing a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the order passed by this Court. When the Single Judge and Division Bench has already issued directions, contrary to the Division Bench direction, the prayer sought for in these Civil Revision Petitions cannot be entertained. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of these Civil Revision Petitions.
7.Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
8.For the very same prayer as in C.R.P.(MD)No.2079 of 2025, already the defendants in the suit filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.40 of 2022, under Section 151 CPC, and the same came to be dismissed. Suppressing the said dismissal order, filing a Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and the same cannot be entertained. Further, the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No. 1631 of 2025 has already issued a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the order passed by this Court. When the Division Bench has already issued directions, contrary to the Division Bench direction, the prayer sought for in these Civil Revision Petitions cannot be maintained. 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025
9.Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.08.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No MR 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025 To
1.The Sub Judge, Paramakudi.
2.The District Register (Administration), District Register Office, Thirupathur Town, Sivagangai Town, Sivagangai District.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
MR C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2309 & 2079 of 2025 21.08.2025 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:54 pm )