K.Ponnuswamy vs Coimbatore & Periar District
2022 Latest Caselaw 10422 Mad

                                                                         S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                               DATED: 17.06.2022
                                                    CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
                                           S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003


                     S.A.No.1992 of 2003

                     1.K.Ponnuswamy
                     2.R.Govindaraj
                     3.S.Parthasarathy
                     4.Coimbatore Periar District
                       Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam,
                       By its General Secretary, S.Parthasarathy
                     5.K.Arumugam
                     6.S.M.Arumugam                                                 ...Appellants

                                                       Vs.

                     1.Coimbatore & Periar District
                       Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam,
                       by its General Secretary
                     2.S.Duraiswamy
                     3.M.Thiagarajan
                     4.P.Govindaswamy
                     5.A.Palaniswamy
                     6.G.Ganapathy
                     7.M.Palaniswamy
                     8.V.Srinivasan
                     9.Palanivel
                     10.Krishnaswamy
                     11.A.Natarajan
                     12.Idigarai Kandaswamy

                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                         S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

                     13.Tiruppur Periaswamy
                     14.Sivasubramaniam (died)
                     15.Rangappan
                     16.R.Subramaniam
                     17.R.Kumaresan
                     18.K.S.Krishnan
                     19.M.Somasundaram
                     20.Rasukutti (died)                                         ...Respondents

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the learned I-Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore dated 28.02.2003 in A.S.No.96 of 2000 confirming the judgment and decree of the III-Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 10.01.2000 passed in O.S.No.59 of 1994.

For Appellants : Mr.T.V.Ramanujan Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Ramya For Respondents : Mrs.Chitra Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran for R1 to R5, R7 & R8 R6, R9, R10 to R13, R16 to R19

- No Appearance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

S.A.No.1993 of 2003

1.Coimbatore Periar District Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam by its General Secretary, S.Parthasarathy

2.S.Parthasarathy

3.N.Arumugam

4.S.M.Arumugam

5.R.Govindaraj ...Appellants

Vs.

1.S.Duraiswamy

2.M.Thiagarajan

3.P.Govindaswamy

4.A.Palaniswamy

5.G.Ganapathy

6.M.Palaniswamy

7.V.Srinivasan

8.P.V.Velusamy

9.Pathirasamy

10.R.K.Kumaresan

11.K.S.Krishnan

12.M.Somasundaram

13.P.Periaswamy

14.Rangappan

15.T.Sivasubramaniam (died)

16.Rasukutti (died) ...Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the learned I-Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore dated 28.02.2003 in A.S.No.97 of 2000 confirming the judgment and decree of the III-Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 10.01.2000 in O.S.No.2024 of 1994.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

For Appellants : Mr.T.V.Ramanujan Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Ramya For Respondents : Mrs.Chitra Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran for R1 to R4, R6 & R7 R5, R8 to R14 – No Appearance 15 & 16 – Died

COMMON JUDGMENT

S.A.No.1992 of 2003

1.The 1st, 4th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 17th defendants in O.S.No.59

of 1994 on the file of the III-Additional District Munsif Court at

Coimbatore are the appellants herein. They had suffered a decree in the

Trial Court and also an adverse judgment in A.S.No.96 of 2001 which came

up for consideration before the I-Additional District Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate, Coimbatore on 28.02.2003. Questioning the judgments passed

by both the Trial Court and by the first Appellate Court, aforementioned

defendants have filed the present Second Appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

2.The Second Appeal had been admitted on only one substantial

question of law, which is as follows:-

“When the case of the plaintiffs themselves is that they are entitled to be in Office till 11.05.1994, can a civil Court grant a decree for permanent injunction protecting their alleged Office forever?”

3.The suit in O.S.No.59 of 1994 had been filed by the plaintiffs

who are the respondents herein with respect to the appointment as Office

Bearers of the 1st plaintiff / Trade Union and questioning the right of the

defendants to continue as Office Bearers of the 1st plaintiff / Trade Union

and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from

interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to discharge their duties and

functioning as Office Bearers of the 1st plaintiff / Union.

4.On completion of pleadings, the parties were invited to adduce

evidence. On analysis of the pleading and the evidence, the suit was

decreed. The subsequent First Appeal filed by the appellants herein was

dismissed. However, the main grievance as stated in the substantial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

question of law was that while granting relief of injunction, permanent

injunction was granted in favour of the respondents herein / plaintiff, and

therefore, an apprehension had been raised by the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants that grant of permanent injunction

could be interpreted as giving right in perpetuity to the respondents herein

to continue as Office Bearers of the 1st plaintiff / Union and that, even if

elections are held subsequently, and the electorate bring into power other

candidates as Office Bearers, they could still not interfere with the

functioning of the respondents.

5.To that extent, though a substantial question of law has been

framed, only a clarification is required with respect to the decree of the Trial

Court.

6.The decree of the Trial Court is modified and it is clarified that

the injunction granted shall be in force only till the period when the said

Office Bearers were in Office, namely 11.05.1994 which was the period for

which the elections were held. Subsequent elections would be governed not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

by this particular injunction. The Office Bearers who are elected

subsequently would have a right to hold in Office, provided the elections

had been conducted in manner known to law.

7.Therefore, the decree in O.S.No.59 of 1994 on the file of the III-

Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore is modified that injunction is

granted till the period for which the elections had been conducted, namely

11.05.1994. It is only appropriate that such injunction is recognized. To

that extent, a clarification is issued.

8.The Second Appeal in S.A.No.1992 of 2003is allowed to that

limited extent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions,

if any, are closed.

S.A.No.1993 of 2003

9.The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 12th plaintiffs in O.S.No.2024 of

1994 on the file of the III-Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore are

the appellants herein. They had suffered a decree before the said Court on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

10.01.2000 and their subsequent appeal in A.S.No.97 of 2000 which came

up before the I-Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Coimbatore also ended against them, by judgment dated 28.02.2003.

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the said plaintiffs have filed the

present Second Appeal.

10.It must be quite fairly stated that to the advantage of this Court

both the learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and

on behalf of the contesting respondents have clarity in the fact that no

further purpose would be served in pursuing further with the Second Appeal

as subsequently, elections have taken place and matters have progressed to

the Supreme Court and Office Bearers have also taken charge and have

discharged their duties as Office Bearers. In view of that particular fact, the

Second Appeal itself has become infructuous, since the relief sought in the

plaint as on date has become otiose and incapable of being performed. The

Second Appeal in S.A.No.1993 of 2003 is therefore, dismissed as having

become infructuous.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

11.In the result,

i) S.A.No.1992 of 2003 is allowed to the limited extent of

clarifying that the injunction granted by the Trial Court in O.S.No.59 of

1994 was till 11.05.1994,

ii) S.A.No.1993 of 2003 is dismissed as infructuous.

iii) No costs.

17.06.2022 kkn Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

KKN

To:-

1.The I-Additional District Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

2.The III-Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

S.A.Nos.1992 & 1993 of 2003

17.06.2022

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