Notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is mandatory when a suit is filed against a Temple, which is represented by an Executive Officer, who is a Government servant and the Temple is falling under the administrative control of the Government.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Fair order and Decreetal order dated 11.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.156 of 2014 by the Hon'ble 1^st Additional District Court, Erode.

2. The 5^th defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and instituted a suit for Partition and Separate Possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to amend the plaint. The trial adjudicated the issues and allowed the Interlocutory Application filed to amend the plaint.

3. The revision petitioner / 5^th respondent is Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Ponkaliamman Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Muthusamy and Arulmigu Molipili Annamar Swami Deities, represented by the Executive Officer.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner mainly contended that the trial Court has committed an error in not considering the vital ground raised by the revision petitioner that notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., was not at all issued by the plaintiff to the revision petitioner/Temple, which is administered by the “State” and the Executive Officer is a public servant.

5. In respect of the said ground raised by the revision petitioner, the trial Court, in the impugned order passed in the Interlocutory Application has made a finding as follows:

“The learned fifth respondent's counsel through his written arguments also argued that, a portion of the suit property already has been dedicated to the fifth respondent Deity by the first respondent and so the petitioner also has filed this suit for partition of Government Properties, but notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code was not at all issued by the petitioner before filing of the suit and so this suit itself is not maintainable. This court considering the above contention of the learned fifth respondent's counsel determines that, no Government Department is impleaded as a party in this suit and also in this petition and so notice under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code was not at all necessary before filing of this suit and so the above said contention of the learned fifth respondent's counsel is not at all acceptable, sustainable and tenable and so as a consequence this court rejects the above contention of the learned fifth respondent's counsel.”

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner contended that notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is mandatory since the Executive Officer is a Government servant and Temple is falling under the administrative control of the Government and thus, the plaint is to be rejected. To reject the plaint, the petitioner herein filed C.R.P.No.2036 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In respect of the present Civil Revision Petition, the order passed in the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.2 of 2021 dated 11.11.2021 is under challenge, since the trial Court arrived a conclusion that notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is not required and further, the revision petitioner is not a Government Department and the Executive Officer is not a public servant. The contentions raised by the revision petitioner in this regard was rejected by the trial Court as not acceptable, sustainable and tenable. Thus, the revision petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

8. The short question to be decided in the present Civil Revision Petition is that, whether revision petitioner/Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Ponkaliamman Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Muthusamy and Arulmigu Molipili Annamar Swami Deities, represented by the Executive Officer is a Government Temple/the 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and the Executive Officer is a public servant or not. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on Rule 9 of Conditions For Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015, which reads as under:

“9.