Madras High Court
K.Perumal vs / on 1 October, 2018
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.10.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.1760 of 2017 & 1761 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.9479 and 9780 of 2017 K.Perumal .. Petitioner/Defendant /Vs./ O.R.Seenivasa Iyyengar .. Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1760 of 2017: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 25.09.2017 passed in I.A.No.1575 of 2017 in O.S.No.256 of 2017 by the District Munsif, Melur and consequently allow the Civil Revision Petition. PRAYER in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1761 of 2017: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to struck down the plaint filed in O.S.No.256 of 2017 pending on the file of the District Munsif, Melur and consequently allow the Civil Revision Petition. !For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan ^For Respondent : Mr.M.Kannan (in both petitions) :ORDER
The defendant in O.S.No.256 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, is the revision petitioner in both Civil Revision Petitions.
2.The suit was instituted by the respondent herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with his right to do poojas in the suit temple. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.1575 of 2017 and obtained an interim order in his favour on ex-parte basis, the same is questioned in C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1760 of 2017. C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1761 of 2017 has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.256 of 2017 from the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner who reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds.
4.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the parties should be allowed to try the suit on merits. He further contented that since an order is one granting interim relief in his favour, invocation of Article 227 of Constitution of India is not justified. It is an appealable order.
5.This court went through the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers. It is seen that the plaintiff/respondent herein was a priest of the suit temple. But the then Trustees by passing a resolution have removed him from service. The resolution passed by the Trustees is referred to in the official communication, dated 02.06.2015 sent by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai, to the Police authorities of Melur. As per Section 21 of the Tamilnadu H.R & C.E Act, any order passed by a trustee of a Religious Institution is revisable. Both the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed in October 2017. The plaintiff has been served with the typed set of papers in both the Civil Revision Petitions. Therefore, the plaintiff is very much having the knowledge that he is no longer in the service of the temple. The resolution passed by the Trustees to the effect that the plaintiff who reached the age of Superannuation can no longer serve in the temple. The said order is yet to be set aside or stayed. Therefore, it is apparent that the plaintiff is not having the locus standi to file the suit in question. In fact, the plaintiff had earlier filed O.S.No.13 of 2015 before the very same Court against the Indian Bank in respect of the Savings Bank Account. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff without setting aside the resolution passed by the Trustees will not have any locus standi, this Court is of the view that both the Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be allowed.
6.Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The District Munsif, Melur.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.