Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66816
2025:MHC:2124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 31.07.2025 Pronounced on: 29.08.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR O.S.A.No.241 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.1464 of 2025 and CMP.No.15467 of 2022 and CMP.No.8369 of 2023 Shri Edappadi K.Palanichami, Joint Coordinator, The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. .. Appellant vs
1.Shri B.Ramkumar Adityan 2.Shri K.C.Suren Palanisamy (The 1st and 2nd Respondents for themselves and on behalf of the Primary members of the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam under Representative Capacity.)
3.The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Represented by its Coordinator & Joint Coordinator Shri O.Panneerselvam & Shri Edappadi K.Palanichami, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
4.Shri O.Panneerselvam, Coordinator, The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
-
5.Shri K.P.Munisamy, Deputy Coordinator, The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
6.Shri R.Vaithilingam, Deputy Coordinator, The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. 7.Shri A.Tamil Magan Hssain, Interim Presidium Chairman, The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
8.Shri C.Ponniyan, Election Officer, The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
9.Shri Pollachi V.Jayaraman, Election Officer, The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the fair and decretal order passed in A.No.1204 of 2022 in C.S.(D)No.119663 of 2021 dated 26.04.2022, on the file of this Court, praying that the same may be set aside.
For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel For Mr.E.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Antony Jesus (for R1)
-
Mr.S.Sankar (for R2)
No Appearance(for R3, R5, R7, R8 & R9)
Not ready in notice (for R6 & R7)
The court emphasized strict compliance with procedural rules under the CPC for representative suits, invalidating the grant of leave due to a deficient affidavit.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 8 & Order III Rule 2 - Original Side Appeal challenging order permitting plaintiffs to sue in representative capacity - Court finds that necessary affidavit lacked details to satisfy procedural requirements under the Rules, rendering the leave granted improper. (Paras 62-80)
(B) The court held that permission to sue as a representative is contingent on strict adherence to procedural requirements, emphasizing community of interest and proper identification of parties to be represented. (Paras 50-54)
Facts of the case:
The suit sought declarations against intra-party elections and amendments made to the party constitution, filed in the name of two plaintiffs claiming to represent primary members of the AIADMK. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, as the order granting leave to sue in a representative capacity was set aside due to procedural non-compliance. The plaintiffs may pursue the suit in individual capacity if they desire. (Par 82)
Issues: The court addressed whether the suit had become infructuous due to subsequent resolutions and the procedural legality of granting representation in the suit. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules for representative suits, noting that the absence of fundamental details in the supporting affidavit invalidated the grant of leave. (Paras 66-79)
Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order is set aside.
Key Points: - The appeal challenges the single judge's order dated 26.04.2022 granting leave to sue in representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 CPC and Order III Rule 2 OS Rules in a suit by two plaintiffs representing primary members of AIADMK (!) (!) . - The suit seeks declarations that certain resolutions, amendments to party constitution, and intra-party elections are null and void, along with injunctions and mandatory reliefs (!) (!) (!) . - The court held the suit not entirely infructuous as some prayers survive despite reversal of certain resolutions on 11.07.2022 (!) (!) . - Appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent as the impugned order affects valuable rights, distinguishing it from Kerala High Court precedents (!) (!) (!) . - The affidavit filed by plaintiffs fails to comply with Order III Rule 2 OS Rules, lacking number of parties represented, their addresses, specific averment of common interest, nature of interest, means of notice, and probable cost (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Permission to sue in representative capacity requires strict compliance with procedural requirements; defective affidavit invalidates grant of leave (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Issuance of notice by publication on 18.03.2022 was premature without verifying affidavit compliance (!) (!) . - Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; plaintiffs may pursue suit in individual capacity (!) . - Decree in representative suit binds all represented persons only if proper procedure followed, including notice and acquiescence (!) .
What is the procedure for obtaining leave to sue in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 CPC and Order III Rule 2 OS Rules?
What are the required particulars in the affidavit supporting an application under Order III Rule 2 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules?
Is an Original Side Appeal maintainable against an order granting leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC?
JUDGMENT
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J
This Original Side Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in Application No.1204 of 2022 in C.S.Diary No.11966 of 2021, on 26.04.2022. The respondents were the applicants and plaintiffs in the Suit. The parties are referred to as per their rank in this appeal.
2. The Suit was filed seeking the following prayers:
a. For a Declaration that the Resolutions No.7, 10, 11 and 12 passed by the General Council on 12.09.2017 and the Special Resolution passed by the Executive Committee on 01.12.2021 and subsequent amendments made in the Original Constitution/the Rules and Regulation of the 1st Defendant Party is null and void and unconstitutional.
b. For a Declaration that the Intra Party Election Notifications dated 02.12.2021 for the post of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator jointly and the posts of Party Village Branch Administrators, Party Municipality Ward Administrators, Party District Ward Administrators and Party Corporation Ward Administrators, subsequent Elections, declaration of the Results and implementation of the Results are void, unconstitutional and void ab initio.
-
c. Pass a Permanent Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant Party; to convene the General Council and Executive Committee, to pass and implement any Resolution of the General Council and Executive Committee without the General Secretary in the light of Rule.20(i) and Rule.20(vi) of the Original Constitution/the Rules and Regulations.
d. Pass a Permanent Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant Party; to assign the Administrative powers of the General Secretary under Rule.19(iv), Rule.20(vi), Rule.20(iii), Rule.20(iv), Rule.20(vi), Rule.20(xiii), Rule.30, Rule 35 and Rule.45 to any other Existing and New post in the light of Rules.20(i) and Rule.20(vi) of the Original Constitution/the Rules and Regulations.
e. Pass a Mandatory Injunction directing the 1st Defendant Party to prepare the Voter List of the Primary Members as on 05.12.2016 subject to fulfilment of Rule 5(ii) and Rule.30 (v), to issue the Election Notification for the post of the General Secretary as per provisions of Rule.20(ii) and Rule.43, to permit to contest for the post of the General Secretary of those who are members of the Party for five years without any break as on 05.12.2016 as per Rule.30(v), to conduct Election for the post of General Secretary as per provisions of the rule 20(ii) and Rule.43 of the Original Constitution/the Rules and Regulations of the 1st Defendant Party which is in force as on 05.12.2016, the day of demise of the General Secretary Late.Dr.J.Jayalalithaa.
f. Grant such further or order relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.
3. There are 2 plaintiffs and since they intended to represent the primary members of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in a representative capacity, leave was sought to be obtained in terms of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) and Order III Rule 2 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules (OS Rules).
4. The procedure set out for seeking leave will be presently gone into in detail. For the purpose of setting the stage for this order, suffice it to say that an affidavit was filed seeking leave to sue against the appellant/D3- Shri.Edappadi K.Palanichami, R3/D1 - AIADMK, R4/D2 - Shri.O.Paneerselvam and other respondents (R5 to R9)/defendants - D4 to D8.
5. On 18.03.2022, R1 was directed to serve respondents by effecting paper publication in one issue of Tamil daily ‘Dhinamalar’ and in one issue of English daily ‘The Hindu’, privately too. The matter was directed to be listed on 13.04.2022 for filing proof of service.
6. Notice was taken by the learned counsel for R1. A counter had been filed by the appellant, who assailed the maintainability of the application seeking leave to sue, contending that the respondents are not the members of the AIADMK, and
