BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.04.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.(MD).No.119 of 2015 V.Sundaramoorthy ....Appellant/

Appellant/Plaintiff vs

1.The Secretary, Commercial Tax and Registration Department Tamil Nadu, Government Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

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

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

4.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.66 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 to R3 Mr.M.Mohamed Ibram Saibu for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R4 *****

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff namely the Paramakudi Vaniyar Sangam represented by its President V.Sundaramoorthy filed a suit seeking declaration that the committee elected on 21.01.2010, in the general body meeting of the fourth defendant Sabai was null and void.

2. The plaintiff also sought for other reliefs. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent findings, the plaintiff has come by way of this second appeal.

3. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following the 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?”

4. The plaintiff sought for the following reliefs in the plaint.

“a)Declare that the committee elected on 21.01.2010 in the general body meeting as per the announcement issued by the committee of the Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Murayarkalin Pothu Sabai is null and void.

b) Directing the defendants to publish the paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Murayarkalin Pothu Sabai functioning against the provisions of the Act as defunct in the official Gazatte of Tamil Nadu.

c) Directing the 3^rd defendant to strike the name of the society in the Register and publish the strike off notice in the official Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.

d) Directing the 1, 2^nd defendant to take action against the 3^rd defendant and the committee of the paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin murayarkalin Pothu Sabai for the violation of Act and Rules made there under during the period of 1981-1985, 1996-2001, 2001-2006, 2006-2009, 2009-20