Plaintiff lacks legal standing to sue without prior notice to defendants due to absence of jural relationship, emphasizing necessity of notice under Section 80(1) of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

This application is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking leave of this Court to institute the present suit without serving a pre-suit notice upon the respondents / defendants, as required under Section 80 (1) of CPC.

2. The suit was filed on 30.09.2024, first hearing of this application was on 03.10.2024. The proposed suit has been filed seeking for a declaration that the plaintiff and its members have a right to the use and enjoy of the suit property, including the right to continue golfing activities, as has been peacefully exercised for the past 147 years; a declaration that the defendant's act of locking Gate No.5 on 09.09.2024, thereby preventing access to the members of the plaintiff club as illegal; a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or obstructing the plaintiff and its members from enjoying the suit property for Golfing activity; mandatory injunction directing the defendants to unlock Gate No.5 and permit access to the suit property as it was earlier to the closing and sealing of the Gates of the plaintiff's Golf Club. Pending suit, they filed the present application.

3. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff and the proposed applicant/plaintiff would contend that there is an urgency to be considered since the official respondents / defendants are changing the nature and character of the land under the guise of making pond and hence seeks for allowing this application by dispensing with the notice under Section 80 (2) of C.P.C.

4. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant filed counter and made submissions that the applicant herein has no locus standi before this Court to the present petition and there is no privity of contract between the parties and hence he cannot knock the doors of this Court under Section 80(2) of CPC and also contended that the lease of land given to the Madras Race Club (in short MRC) has been determined and they have moved the application before this Court and after contest, Application No.4809 of 2024 was allowed on 26.09.2024, however, the Madras Race Club, the original lessee has not taken any steps to number the suit since there was no urgency. Such being the case, the applicant/plaintiff is still at lower position and he cannot claim the plea of urgency to dispense with Section 80(2) of CPC.

5. According to Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, the applicant/plaintiff herein has no better right than MRC and prayer for dismissal of the application.

6. Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General for the 1^st respondent and the affidavit and counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent and typedset of papers filed by both the parties.

7. The applicant / plaintiff claims that it was established in the year 1889 that Registered Office at Island Grounds, Anna Salai and subsequently registered in the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act and there is no commercial interest in functioning of the applicant and it is not a profit making organisation and also stated various history on the Madras Golf Club and Madras Gymkhana Club which was said to have been amalgamated in the year 1887. As per the affidavit filed by the applicant, the relationship between the applicant, the relationship between the applicant and the MRC has been cordial and in the common endeavour, the schedule land has been utilised for their activities namely Horse Race an