BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON

13.11.2025 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

CRP(MD). Nos.3363 & 3364 of 2025

and

CMP(MD)No.18384 of 2025

Anitha R.Sivananthan Nadar ... Petitioner in both CRPs.,

Vs.

C.Kamarj Nadar (Died) 1.N.Selvakumar Nadar

2.S.Sundarraj @ Sundar Nadar

3.P.Rajasekar Nadar

4.K.Usha

5.E.Packiyaraj ... Respondents in C.R.P.(MD).No.3363 of 2025

C.Kamarj Nadar (Died) 1.N.Selvakumar Nadar

2.S.Sundar Raj @ Sundar Nadar

3.P.Rajasekar Nadar

4.K.Usha

5.E.Pakkiyaraj ... Respondents in C.R.P.(MD).No.3364 of 2025

PRAYER in CRP(MD).No. 3363 of 2025 :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.110 of 2025 in O.S.No.205 of 2022, dated 23.10.2025 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tirunelveli.

PRAYER in CRP(MD).No.3364 of 2025 :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.122 of 2025 in O.S.No.205 of 2022, dated 23.10.2025 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tirunelveli.

In both C.R.Ps.

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.L.Prabakar

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.Nos.110 & 122 of 2025 in O.S.No.205 of 2022, dated 23.10.2025 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tirunelveli.

2. Mr.H.Arumugam learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suit was filed challenging the election that was conducted for a Society named Dakshina Mara Nadar Sangam, Tirunelveli in its Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 04.05.2022. Subsequently, the same came to be amended, as the elected period of the office bearers was over by 03.05.2025 and a fresh election was conducted and the newly elected office bearers have also assumed charge. Hence, the petitioner had also filed an Interlocutory Application to dismiss the suit as being infructuous.

3. He would submit that after the arguments were heard, orders in I.A.No.110 of 2025 were reserved and at that juncture it had come to the knowledge of the petitioner that evidences are required to be lead in and filed an application in I.A.No.122 of 2025 seeking permission to lead oral evidence in I.A.No.110 of 2025. He would submit that the Court below after hearing the parties had dismissed both the applications by holding that the suit cannot be dismissed as infructuous as there are other prayers which have to be contested by the petitioner. He would submit that the entire suit is framed by the plaintiffs have wholly become infructuous and the Court below had failed to note the same and had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he seeks indulgence in the orders impugned in this Revision Petition.

4. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the earlier applications were taken out for carrying out necessary amendments to the plaint as well as impleading certain of the parties to the suit. An application was also taken out by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11, contending that the suit had become infructuous. The applications filed for amendment and impleading were allowed and the Order VII Rule 11 came to be dismissed. Against which the petitioner had preferred three Revision Petitions in CRP.(MD).No. 1652 to 1654 of 2024 and by order dated 02.09.2024, the said Revisions came to be dismissed by this Court.

5. He would submit that a categorical finding had been given by this Court while rejecting the claim that the suit itself had become infructuous by recording a fact that in view of the amendment made to the plaint, the suit had not become infructuous. The said order inter partes had become final and therefore, the petitioner cannot take out an application under Section 151 innocuously to raise the very same issue of the suit being infructuous.

6. He would submit that even though, the prayers relating to th