O R D E R

The defendants 1, 5 and 6, being unsuccessful in an attempt to reject the plaint in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.4638 of 2020 are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajaraman and Mr.V.V.Sairam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Manivanannan for Mrs.Karpagavarthini, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would first and foremost state that the suit being one for specific performance and even according to the suit documents, the land belonging to a Temple, there is a clear bar for sale of the suit property without prior sanction of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 ( in short ‘HR &CE Act’). It is therefore contended that the prayer itself is not maintainable and further the primordial ground on which the rejection of the plaint was sought for is that the suit is also hopelessly barred by limitation.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel would rely on the following decisions:-

(i) Sri Mukunth Bhavan Tr