JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal orders passed in I.A.No.295 of 2009 in O.S.No.139 of 2008 dated 03.02.2014 on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil and allow the said I.A. by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

1. This revision petition is directed as against the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, in I.A.No.295 of 2009 in O.S.No.139 of 2008, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondents for declaration, mandatory injunction and appointment of advocate commissioner in respect of Kulanthaiamman Sannithi which comes under the purview of the petitioner's temple and also to declare that that said Kulanthaiamman Sannithi is not a separate temple and it administered by the petitioner's temple. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.295 of 2009 for rejection of plaint only on the ground that the prayers sought for in the main suit have no jurisdiction to entertain by the Civil Court and it is clearly barred under Section 108 of Hindu Religion & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as “HR&CE Act”). Instead of approaching the Commissioner of HR&CE, the respondents filed the present suit. The trial Court by an order dated 03.02.2014 dismissed the above said application by observing that the prayers did not either relate or affect to the management and administration of the said temple. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner temple has come under the purview of HR&CE Board and in fact it is represented by its Executive Officer. While being so, the respondents are being the members of Thennacharya Divya Samrakshana Sath Sangam, and in the capacity of worshipers, filed the suit with the prayer that the Kulanthaiamman Sannathi is not a private and individual temple and it is came under the petitioner's temple and its administration. Further prayed that the Mandabam constructed by the petitioner adjacent to the Kulanthaiamman Sanithi is not under the Agama Rules and it is liable to be demolished. The respondents also prayed for injunction restraining the petitioner from performing pooja under the Vaishanava customs. Therefore, all the prayers sought in the suit are pertaining to the administration and management of the religious institution. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable, since there is clear bar under Section 108 of HR&CE Act.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents filed suit in the year 2008. Immediately after receipt of the summons, the petitioner filed its written statement. In fact, the commissioner was appointed to inspect the petitioner's temple and note down the physical features. Accordingly, he inspected the petitioner's temple and filed his report. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the petition for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable and there is a bar under section 108 of HR&CE Act. The Commissioner of HR&CE does not have any power to issue direction to demolish the construction put up by the petitioner against Agama rules. Only the civil Court has got power and jurisdiction to issue mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the petitioner herein. Further she submitted that though the petitioner's temple comes under the purview of HR&CE Board, they are performing all the poojas against the customs of Vishnava. Therefore, the suit is very much maintainable. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J.73 in the case of Sayarakshai Kattalai Vs. R.Radhakrishnan and anr.

5. Heard Mr.M.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for t