C.R.P(MD)No.1821 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN

THILAKAVADI

C.R.P(MD)No.1821 of 2023

and

C.M.P(MD)No.9096 of 2023

Rangarajan Narasimhan

Sanathana Dharmam/Sri Vaishnavam

“Arangan Thirumutram”

Kollidam Road,

400m West of Andavan Ashraman

Srirangam, Trichy-620 006.

... Petitioner/Petitioner/

Defendant

Vs.

P.Jayaraman

... Respondent/

Respondent/Plaintiff

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.03.2023 made in

I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.277 of 2020 before the III Additional District

Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

For Petitioner

:Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan

(Party-in-Person)

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1821 of 2023

ORDER

This revision is preferred as against the fair and decreetal order, dated

08.03.2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.277 of 2020 before the III

Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

2.According to the revision petitioner, the respondent herein filed a

suit in O.S.No.277 of 2020 for temporary injunction. During the pendency

of the said suit, the petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.2 of 2021, to reject

the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable, since the post

pertains to the Temple administration and not on any individual. It is further

stated that the plaintiff in his individual capacity has filed the above suit is

not maintainable. The trial Judge, without appraising the evidence on

records, simply dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein. It is

further submitted that the respondent has no locus standi to file the above

suit, since he was only discharging his function as Executive Officer

Subordinate to the Trustees of the Temple and he cannot maintain the suit

for defamation in his personal capacity.

3,Heard the person who appeared in person and perused the materials

available on record.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1821 of 2023

4.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the plaintiff has filed the

above suit for damages and for permanent injunction alleging that the

defendant has made defamatory speeches and videos in Social Media.

5.The main contention of the petitioner herein is that the alleged

defamatory speeches are not against the individual plaintiff and the suit

does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant. He would

submit if any allegation made against the Temple administration, it directly

attracts the function of the Executive Officer. His further contention is that

if any infirmity find out in the temple administration, the Executive Officer

alone is answerable to such discrepancy, since the Executive Officer is

alone administrating the day to day affairs of the temple. It is further

contended that the alleged social media speeches is related to opening of

temple Hundial. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to

file the above suit and there is no cause of action to file the suit against the

petitioner/defendant and the suit is liable to be rejected. In the impugned

order, the trial Court has observed as follows:

“9. All facts relating to opening of Hundial and

Publishing video of the a defendant or disclosed in the plaint.

These are all admitted by the defendant. Whether the speeches

and video are defamatory can be decided only in the trial.

Without adducing both side evidence the merits of the cause of

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1821 of 2023

action cannot be decided. It is needless to say that cause of

action is the bundle of facts. It can be concluded only after

examining both side evidence. The learned respondent council

relied on a ruling reported in 2006 SAR (Civil) 209 Mayar

(H.K) Ltd. and others owners and parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune,

where in para 11 reads as follows:

"From the above said, it is apparent th