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.4793 of 2013

& M.P.No.1 of 2015

1. Leela

2. CPM Raja

... Petitioners/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 1 to 6 / Defendants 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.300 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 in

I.A.No.300 of 2012 in O.S.No.187 of 2012 to reopen the suit for

the purpose of receiving the application 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 Sub

Ordinate Judge, Coimbatore has been filed by the plaintiff for

the relief of specific performance and other reliefs. In the

suit, 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 suo motto 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 filed I.A.No.300 of 2012, application for

reopening the main suit to seek necessary 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 moto 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, submitted that the petitioner

cannot reopen the case for receiving the above petition.

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

this 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.300 of 2012.

5. The main contention of the petitioners herein is that

the trial Court ought not to have entertained the application

filed for reopening 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

this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Order passed in

I.A.No.300 of 2012.

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

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

have filed the suit for specific performance. According to the

petitioners, after the arguments is over