Madras High Court
Leela vs Coimbatore District Athupalam ... on 8 March, 2022
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
Civil Revision Petition [PD] No.4794 of 2013
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
1. Leela
2. CPM Raja ... Petitioners
..Vs..
1. Coimbatore District Athupalam Puthiya Pallivasal
Kattum Oor Committee
rep. by its President M.M.Abdul Rahim
Secretary P.S.Abudhahir,
Present Treasurer K.Jahir Hussain,
Athupalam, Coimbatore.
2. S.Piyarijan
3. S.H.Syed Sukur
4. Syed Kasim
5. Syed Sultan
6, Anthoniammal
[Not necessary party, hence, given up] ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal Order dated 26.03.2013
made in I.A.No.301 of 2012 in O.S.No.187 of 2012 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunthan
for Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.L.Mouli – R1
Mr.N.Manokaran – R2
ORDER
Aggrieved against the allowing of the application filed by the
petitioners/plaintiff in I.A.No.301 of 2012 in O.S.No.187 of 2012 seeking
permission to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity for the reliefs
prayed in the suit.
2. The suit in O.S.No.187 of 2012 before the Principal Subordinate
Judge, Coimbatore has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific
performance and other reliefs. In the suit, the evidence has already been
completed and arguments of both sides have been heard and when the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
has been reserved for judgment, the Court has suomotto framed an issue
namely “whether the plaintiffs have the right to file the suit in a
representative capacity without complying the mandatory provisions of
Order I Rule 8 CPC. To avoid any technicalities, the petitioner has filed
I.A.No.301 of 2012 seeking permission to prosecute the suit in the
representative capacity.
3. The respondents filed a counter stating that the application filed by
the petitioner therein under Order I Rule 8 of CPC is barred by limitation
and the same has been filed after the suit was reserved for pronouncing of
judgment. It is further stated that the office bearers of the petitioner Oor
Committee cannot represent the said Committee as the same is an
unregistered body and merely because the Court suo motto framed an issue
regarding maintainability of the suit, it does not mean that the petitioner is
entitled to file an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and hence,
prayed dismissal of this application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
4. After hearing both sides, the Court below has allowed the
application giving an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence with
regard to issue suo motto framed. Challenging the same, the respondents
therein have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the Order
passed in I.A.No.301 of 2012.
5. The main contention of the petitioners herein is that the trial Court
ought not to have entertained the application filed for re-opening the main
suit when the same was reserved for judgment and the application seeking
permission to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity was not filed at
the time of the filing of the suit. It is his further contention that the first
respondent, which is an unregistered body, cannot maintain the suit as well
as the application and hence, prayed to allow the present Civil Revision
Petition and set aside the Order passed in I.A.No.301 of 2012.
6. Perusal of records would go to show that the plaintiffs have filed
the suit for specific performance. According to the petitioners, after the
arguments is over and when the matter is reserved for judgment, the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
has framed an issue “whether the plaintiffs have a right to file an application
to seek permission to prosecute the suit in the representative capacity
without complying the mandatory provisions of Order I Rule 8 CPC.”
Therefore, it is seen that to avoid technicalities, the plaintiff has filed
application seeking permission to prosecute the suit in a representative
capacity. Before the Court below, the learned counsel for the respondents
objected the applications on the ground that the above application has been
filed at the fag end of the suit and therefore, it is barred by limitation. The
learned Judge considering the fact that an issue has been framed in this
regard, has allowed the above application filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC.
7. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the
judgment in Rt. Rev. Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, the Bishop, CSI,
Coimbatore Vs. Rev. Charles Samraj, N.Presbyter & Chairman
reported in 2002 [1] CTC 157 wherein it has been held that non filing of an
application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC is only a procedural error and such
an application can be filed even during the pendency of the appeal and
allowed the application. In the present case, the plaintiffs have filed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC during the pendency of the suit.
Hence, the above judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case.
Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the trial Judge has rightly
allowed the applications and prayed for dismissal of this Civil Revision
Petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials
placed before this Court.
9. Considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondent in Rt. Rev. Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, the Bishop,
CSI, Coimbatore Vs. Rev. Charles Samraj, N.Presbyter & Chairman
reported in 2002 [1] CTC 157 wherein it has been held that non filing of an
application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC is only a procedural error and such
an application can be filed even during the pendency of the appeal and
allowed the application. Here, in the present case on hand, the Court below
had framed suo moto issue and the learned Judge has rendered a finding that
an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to adduce the evidence with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
regard to the same and had allowed the application. Therefore, this Court
finds no infirmity with the order, dated 26.03.2013 passed by the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.301 of 2012 in
O.S.No.187 of 2012 and interference of this Court is not necessary.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.182 of
2012 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Order.
08.03.2022
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
vrc
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.4794 of 2013
J.NISHA BANU, J.
vrc
Civil Revision Petition [PD] No.4794 of 2013
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
