IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

Civil Revision Petition [PD] No.4794 of 2013

& M.P.No.1 of 2015

1. Leela

2. CPM Raja

... Petitioners 1&2/

Defendants 5 &6

..Vs..

1. Coimbatore District Athupalam Puthiya Pallivasal

Kattum Oor Committee

rep. by its President M.M.Abdul Rahim

Secretary P.S.Abudhahir,

Present Treasurer K.Jahir Hussain,

Athupalam, Coimbatore.

... 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff

2. S.Piyarijan

3. S.H.Syed Sukur

4. Syed Kasim

5. Syed Sultan

6, Anthoniammal

[Not necessary party, hence, given up]

... Respondents 2 to 5/ Defendants 1 to 7

Prayer:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article

227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal

Order dated 26.03.2013 made in I.A.No.301 of 2012 in O.S.No.187

of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge,

Coimbatore.

For petitioners

: Mr.S.Mukunthan

for Sarvabhauman Associates

For Respondents

: Mr.L.Mouli – R1

Mr.N.Manokaran – R2

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

Aggrieved against the allowing of the application filed by

the petitioners/plaintiff in I.A.No.301 of 2012 in O.S.No.187 of

2012 seeking permission to prosecute the suit in a

representative capacity for the reliefs prayed in the suit.

2. The suit in O.S.No.187 of 2012 before the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore has been filed by the plaintiff

for the relief of specific performance and other reliefs. In

the suit, the evidence has already been completed and arguments

of both sides have been heard and when the case has been

reserved for judgment, the Court has suomotto framed an issue

namely “whether the plaintiffs have the right to file the suit

in a representative capacity without complying the mandatory

provisions of Order I Rule 8 CPC. To avoid any technicalities,

the petitioner has filed I.A.No.301 of 2012 seeking permission

to prosecute the suit in the representative capacity.

3. The respondents filed a counter stating that the

application filed by the petitioner therein under Order I Rule 8

of CPC is barred by limitation and the same has been filed after

the suit was reserved for pronouncing of judgment. It is

further stated that the office bearers of the petitioner Oor

Committee cannot represent the said Committee as the same is an

unregistered body and merely because the Court suo motto framed

an issue regarding maintainability of the suit, it does not mean

that the petitioner is entitled to file an application under

Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and hence, prayed dismissal of this

application.

4. After hearing both sides, the Court below has allowed

the application giving an opportunity to the petitioner to

adduce evidence with regard to issue suo motto framed.

Challenging the same, the respondents therein have filed the

present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the Order passed in

I.A.No.301 of 2012.

5. The main contention of the petitioners herein is that

the trial Court ought not to have entertained the application

filed for re-opening the main suit when the same was reserved

for judgment and the application seeking permission to prosecute

the suit in a representative capacity was not filed at the time

of the filing of the suit. It is his further contention that

the first respondent, which is an unregistered body, cannot

maintain the suit as well as the application and hence, prayed

to allow the present Civil Revision Petition and set aside the

Order passed in I.A.No.301 of 2012.

6. Perusal of records would go to show that the plaintiffs

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

have filed the suit for specific performance. According to the

petitioners, after the arguments is over and when the matter is

reserved for judgment, the Court has framed an issue “whether

the plaintiffs have a r