BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.04.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.(MD).No.118 of 2015 and MP(MD).No.1 of 2015 V.Sundaramoorthy ...Appellant/

Appellant/Plaintiff Vs

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The District Registrar(Admin), 1-A, Thiruppathur Road, Sivagangai Town & District.

3.The Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Uravin Muraiyalargalin Pothu Sabai, Represented by its President No.8/191, Kannagi Street, Paramakudy Town, Ramanathapuram District.

...Respondents/

Respondents/Defendants PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2014 made in A.S.No.65 of 2012 on the file of Sub Court, Paramakudi confirming the judgment and decree dated

13.07.2012 made in Unfiled O.S.No. of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Sivathilakar For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.M.Mohamed Ibram Saibu for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R3 *****

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration that registration of the resolution dated 14.12.2003 as per the Lr.No.700/A2/ 2009, dated 15.06.2009 was null and void and for consequent injunction restraining the third defendant not to entertain the affairs of the Society based on the registration of the resolution. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal and the first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent findings against him, he has preferred the present second appeal.

2. At that time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law by an order dated 18.02.2015:

“1) Whether the Court below are correct in law in rejecting the plaint suo moto on the ground there is no cause of action and material evidence, when the appellant has filed the relevant resolution along with the plaint to disclose cause of action as required under Order 7 Rule

11(b) of CPC?

2) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in following the procedure at the time of admission of the plaint as required under relevant provision of CPC? 3) Whether the Courts below have jurisdiction to reject the plaint suo moto, when it is the duty of the trial Court to take note of the pleadings alone in the plaint during the presentation of the plaint and when the plaintiff/appellant has disclosed cause of action in the suit?

4)Whether the Courts below are correct in law in not following the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 13 of CPC before dismissing the suit in entirety without giving any liberty to present fresh plaint on the same cause of action?

5)Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in law in not framing points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of Civil Procedure Code?”

3. The appellant herein sought for the following prayers:

“a)declaring that to declare the act of registering the resolution taken on 14.12.2003 as per the Lr.No.

700/A2/2009 dated 15.06.2009 is null and void.

b) Granting permanent injunction by restraining the 3^rd defendant not to be entertain the affairs of the society owing to the registration of the resolution taken by the 2^nd defendant on 14.12.2003 vide Lr.No.700/A2/2009/

dated 15.06.2009 in lieu of the amended bye-law.”

4. This Court has gone through the plaint averments and the same is not happily worded. The cause of action paragraph of the plaint reads as follows:

“cause of action arose in the suit as Paramakudi Vaniyar Uravin Murayarkalin Pothu Sabai registered under this Act had no resembleance upon the co-ordination with the provisions of the Act enduring the specification regarding the amendment of bye-laws as per the act was not in continuation while the earlier proceedings were pending for to taken on file by the District Re