Madras High Court
Chinnasamy Naicker vs N.Kuppusamy Naicker on 21 June, 2021
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
and
CMP.Nos. 17393 and 17394 of 2018
CRP (PD) No.2997 of 2018
Chinnasamy Naicker ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. N.Kuppusamy Naicker
2. K.Seshan
3. Singaravelu
4. The Executive Officer,
Mari Chinnamman Temple in charge,
Nemmeli, Alavandhar Trust,
Mamallapuram (Board). ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to set aside the judgment and decretal order in C.M.A.No.5 of
2017 dated 28.06.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Chengalpattu and revising the order and decretal order in
I.A.No.28 of 2017 in O.S.No.2 of 2017 dated 28.04.2017 on the file of
the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram
by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal
For Respondents : Notice Served (No Appearance)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
CRP (PD) No.2998 of 2018
Chinnasamy Naicker ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. N.Kuppusamy Naicker
2. K.Seshan
3. Singaravelu
4. The Executive Officer,
Mari Chinnamman Temple in charge,
Nemmeli, Alavandhar Trust,
Mamallapuram (Board). ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to set aside the judgment and decretal order in C.M.A.No.6 of
2017 dated 28.06.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Chengalpattu and revising the order and decretal order in
I.A.No.29 of 2017 in O.S.No.2 of 2017 dated 28.04.2017 on the file of
the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram
by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal
For Respondents : Notice Served (No Appearance)
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the judgment
and decretal order passed in C.M.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2017 dated
28.06.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
Chengalpattu, reversing the order and decretal order in I.A.Nos.28 and
29 of 2017 in O.S.No.2 of 2017 dated 28.04.2017 on the file of the
learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram,
thereby allowing these petitions for interim injunction.
2. In both the Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner is the plaintiff
and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed the suit for
declaration to declare that the petitioner is a “mu;rfu;” in the year 2017 at
Temple of Goddess “Mari Chinnamman” at Kadampadi Village,
Thirukazhukundram Taluk and for mandatory injunction against the first,
second and fourth respondents directing them to appoint the petitioner as
a “mu;rfu;” in the year 2017, at Temple of Goddess “Mari Chinnamman”
Temple at Kadampadi Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk and also for
permanent injunction restraining the first, second and fourth respondents,
their men, agents and servants to appoint the third respondent as a
“mu;rfu;” at “Mari Chinnamman Temple” at Kadampadi Village,
Thirukazhukundram Taluk. The petitioner filed a petition in I.A. No. 29
of 2017 for interim injunction against the first, second and fourth
respondents herein directing them to appoint the petitioner as Archagar
in the year 2017, at Temple of Goddess “Mari Chinnamman” Temple at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
Kadampadi Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk. He also filed another
petition in I.A. No. 28 of 2017 for interim injunction restraining the
respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein from appointing the third respondent as
Archagar for the said temple. Both the petitions were allowed by the trial
Court and the first Appellate Court reversed the same and dismissed the
interim injunction petitions. It is seen that the petitioner filed the suit for
declaration to declare him as Archagar in the year 2017 for the temple
called as Mari Chinnamman Temple situated at Kadampadi Village,
Thirukazhukundram Taluk. Therefore, now the temporary interim
injunction appointing him as Archagar for the year 2017 at the Mari
Chinnamman Temple, has become infructuous. In fact, the main prayer
of the suit also for the year only 2017 to be appointed as Archagar for the
Mari Chinnamman Temple.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the
petitioner is taking steps to file a petition for amendment of prayer.
4. However, the interim prayer sought for by the petitioner has
become infructuous and also if the interim order is granted, it amounts to
grant of main prayer in the suit. Therefore, the first Appellate Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
rightly allowed the appeals and dismissed the orders passed by the trial
Court and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgments
passed by the first Appellate Court.
5. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No
costs.
21.06.2021
kv
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Thirukalukundram.
3. The The Executive Officer,
Mari Chinnamman Temple in charge,
Nemmeli, Alavandhar Trust,
Mamallapuram (Board).
4. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
kv
CRP (PD) Nos.2997 and 2998 of 2018
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
