ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed as against the order of the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi in I.A.No.790 of 2013 in O.S.No.150 of 2011, dated

30.01.2017.

2.The respondent / plaintiff has filed the above suit in O.S.No.150 of

2011 for the following reliefs:

“a.To declare the validity of the enquiry that is conducted under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, by the third defendant in Lr.No.5063/A2/2009, dated 16.09.2010 and

30.08.2010 is sustainable under law.

b.To declare that the order passed against the provision of the Act and Rules made thereunder in Lr.no.23783/I1/201T dated by the second defendant is null and void.

c.To direct the first defendant who has the sovereign power under this Act to pass order for the amalgamation of the Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Muraiyarkalin Pothu Sabai into the Paramakudy Vaniyar Sangam (S.No.62/2008) that entrusted with the powers to make Rules regarding the amalgamation of societies under this Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.

(d)To direct the 1st defendant to take action against the 2nd and

3rd defendants for the reneged of their duty in accordance with the issues by the personal and administrative department in the Memo Lr.No.19500/Alyvu1/2010-11, personal and administrative reforms department/Alyvu1 dated 03.05.2010 and the same in Lr.No. 27084/Aiyvu-1, 2020-1 personal and administrative reforms Department/Aiyvu-1, dated 21.06.2010 collectively.

(e)To direct the 2nd defendant to give previous sanction in writing for the institution of criminal proceedings according to the representation dated 16.09.2010 by the III defendant as well as the representation dated 30.08.2010 in which the enquiry had been conducted by the DIG of registration at Madurai regarding the reports.

(f)To grant permanent injunction by restraining the 1 to 3 defendants not to entertain any further proceedings against Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Muraiyarkalin Pothu Sabai's request in the entertainments of the affairs of the society by any means afterward.

(g)Awarding the costs of the suit.”

3.The petitioner /defendant has filed the interlocutory application in I.A.No.790 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to strike off the plaint that the plaint is not maintainable under law. The respondent, who is not a member of the petitioner's Society has filed the suit claiming to be the President of the Society. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff is not a member of the petitioner's Society, but he has filed the suit claiming himself as the President, only in order to defame the Society. The petitioner's Society and the respondent's Society are separate legal entities and the respondent is not having any legal right or locus standi to file the present suit, in respect of affairs of the petitioner's Society. The respondent's Society was formed in the year 2008 and it cannot question any order passed in respect of the affairs of the petitioner's Society.

5.The learned Counsel further submitted that one Society cannot intermeddle in the affairs of the another Society. As against the order passed under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, an appeal remedy is available under Section 45 of the said Act and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The amalgamation of two Societies cannot be forced on the unwilling Society by other Society either directly or at the interaction of the authority under the Act.

6.The learned Counsel further submitted that if the statutory authority failed to do their duty, there is an appeal remedy available. If the plaintiff fails in the appeal, he has to approach this Court either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The sanction for the alleged criminal prosecution cannot be granted by the civil Court and as such prayer (e) is baseless and mischievous and prayer (f) is al