C.R.P.(PD)No.2769 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P.(PD)No.2769 of 2023

and C.M.P.No.17118 of 2023

1. S.Thangaraj

K.K.Balasubramaniam (died)

2. R.Selvam

3.L.Madeswaran

4.P.Anbazhagan

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1. N.Palanivel

2. B.Balamurugan

3. A.Ponnusamy

.. Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 04.01.2023

made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.125 of 2017 on the file of the

Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

For Petitioners

: Mr. R.Marudhachalamurthy

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.2769 of 2023

ORDER

Heard Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, learned counsel for the

petitioners. I have carefully gone through the entire records.

2. The revision arises against an order passed by the learned

Principal District Munsif at Tiruchengode in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in

O.S.No.125 of 2017.

3. The suit in O.S.No.125 of 2017 is for declaration and for

injunction that the plaintiffs are the administrators of the suit temple. In

the said suit, an application in I.A.No.3 of 2021 was filed under Order

VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The claim of the petitioners/defendants is that the suit is barred

by virtue of the provisions of Sections 63 & 64 of the HR and CE Act.

The learned District Munsif at Tiruchengode has given a finding that the

suit is not barred by virtue of the fact that the temple itself is not the one

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.2769 of 2023

covered under the HR and CE Act. This position has been admitted by

the revision petitioners/defendants in the written statement. When the Act

does not apply to the temple, the question of it being a bar for the

presentation of the suit does not arise. Therefore, it is not a ground to

reject the plaint, because all that the Court sees at the time of rejection of

the plaint is the reading of the plaint alone and the documents filed along

with it. The defence taken by the defendants is absolutely irrelevant for

the purpose of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly decided that the suit is not

barred.

5. The claim of the defendants is that other suit had already been

presented by the plaintiffs/respondents in O.S.No.60 of 2015 on the file

of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode and it operates as

resjudicata. Even on that ground, Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy would want

me to reject the plaint. The rejection of the plaint on the ground of

resjudicata is unknown. Resjudicata is a mixed question of law and fact

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.2769 of 2023

and it has to be gone into only at the time of trial.

6. Reserving the right of the petitioners to raise the objections on

the bar of the suit as well as a plea of resjudicata, the Civil Revision

Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

14.08.2023

Index:Yes/No

Speaking Order :Yes/No

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

kj

To

The Principal District Munsif

Tiruchengode.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

4/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.2769 of 2023

Kj

C.R.P.(PD)No.2769 of 2023

and C.M.P.No.17118 of 2023

14.08.2023

5/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis