Madras High Court
M.Kulandhaivel vs Arulmighu Adhi Narayanaperuml ... on 11 October, 2023
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
in
SA.SR.No.101068 of 2023
[C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023]
M.Kulandhaivel ... Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
Arulmighu Adhi NarayanaPeruml Mariyamman
Thirukovil Thirupanikkulu Arakkattalai
Rep. by its President,
S.Raja Gounder,
Mulluparakadu, Okkilipatti O.Rajapalayam
Thiruchengode Taluk
Nmakkal District.
... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER in C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed
under Section 5 of Limitation Act R/W. 151 of Civil Procedure Code to
condone the delay of 403 days in filing the above Second Appeal
S.A.SR.No.101068 of 2023.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
[SA.SR.No.101068 of 2023]
M.Kulandhaivel ... Appellant
Vs.
Arulmighu Adhi NarayanaPeruml Mariyamman
Thirukovil Thirupanikkulu Arakkattalai
Rep. by its President,
S.Raja Gounder,
Mulluparakadu, Okkilipatti O.Rajapalayam
Thiruchengode Taluk
Nmakkal District.
... Respondent
PRAYER in SA.SR.No.101068 of 2023: Second Appeal is filed under
Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgement and Decree passed in
A.S.No.15 of 2019 dated 15.11.2021 on the file of Subordinate Judge,
Thiruchengode, confirming the Judgement and Decree passed in
O.S.No.281 of 2012 dated 27.06.2023 on the file of District Munsif,
Thiruchengode.
For Appellant : Mr. R.P.Ruban Chakravarthy
For Respondent : M/s.A.Thameen Mohideen
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The above petition is filed to condone the delay of 403 days in filing
the above Second Appeal.
2. The respondent after service of notice has filed their counter
opposing the condonation of delay and contending that there is no
substantial question of law involved in the above Second Appeal.
Therefore, before considering the applications for condonation of delay,
the facts which have led to the filing of the above Second Appeal are
herein below briefly extracted and the parties are referred to in the same
ranking as before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff trust had filed a suit for an injunction restraining
the defendant from interfering with the construction work of the temple
and the administration of the trust. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
suit property belongs to the temple and since the buildings had become
dilapidated, the villagers had decided to reconstruct the temples. For this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
purpose, the plaintiff trust was formed and registered on 01.02.2010. The
Executive Committee of the trust had raised funds from the public and
the work had commenced on 04.06.2010 and the Kumbhabishegam of the
temple was held on 07.11.2011.
4. The plaintiff would contend that the defendant is interfering with
the administration of the temple and he was demanding that the same be
handed over to him and had created problems at a village meeting on
12.08.2012. The defendant was attempting to take advantage of his
political clout. Therefore, left with no other alternative the plaintiff trust
has come forward with the suit in question.
5. The defendant had filed a written statement inter alia contending
that the temple has been built by the villagers belonging to three
communities namely, Kongu Vellalars, Gounders and Naickers. It is the
three communities that were jointly running and managing the activities
of the temple and celebrating the temple festivals. During the temple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
festivals, each of the community members were given a specific task.
However, the plaintiff trust without following this practice and by just
involving a few people had proceeded with the renovation work of the
temple. The villagers had not been consulted when the Committee was
formed. The defendant would contend that he had been the Dharmakarta
from 1985 to 1995 and thereafter from 2007 to date. He had formed a
Committee on 27.08.2012 and this Committee is over-seeing the work of
the temple.
6. The Trial Court on considering the evidence on record had
decreed the suit which was confirmed in appeal and it is challenging the
said judgment and decree that the defendant is before this Court.
7. However, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 403 days. In
the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, the defendant
has submitted that the judgement came to be passed on 15.11.2021 at
which point in time the Covid protocol was in place. Therefore, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
unable to meet his counsel to give necessary instructions for filing the
appeal. Thereafter, he would submit that in the month of September
2022, he had been affected by Jaundice and was bed ridden for over a
month. On his recovery, he had met his counsel before the Lower Court
and obtained the order copies but due to his health condition, the doctor
had advised him not to travel. Thereafter, he had raised funds and come
to meet his counsel in the fourth week of June 2023. Consequently, the
delay has occurred. The delay is neither willful nor wanton but for the
reason stated above.
8. The plaintiff who has entered caveat in the above matter has
opposed the same on the ground that the reasons given in the affidavit are
absolutely false and that there is no merits in the appeal.
9. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
10. A perusal of the judgements of the Courts below would clearly
show that the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff trust has been
formed without following the procedure and without involving the
villagers is absolutely false. The plaintiff has marked Ex.A.1 which is a
resolution passed by the villagers on 24.01.2010, wherein it was decided
to form the plaintiff trust and to commence the renovation work of the
temple. Interestingly, the defendant has himself participated and signed
in this document. After doing so, he has started questioning the right of
the plaintiff trust to proceed with the renovation work and the
administration of the temple. It is informed that the Kumbhabishegam in
the temple has been held on 07.11.2011 much before the filing of the suit
in question and the trust is smoothly running and managing the affairs of
the temple. Therefore, on merits also the defendant has not made out any
case for interfering with the judgement and decree of the Courts below.
11. Be that as it may. The defendant has not provided any details as
to the period from which he has been suffering from Jaundice which had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
prevented him from approaching his Advocate apart from the time of lock
down during the Covid Pandemic. Therefore, the defendant/petitioner has
not come forward to provide sufficient reasons for condoning the delay.
12. Therefore, the CMP.No.22297 of 2023 is dismissed and
consequently, the Second Appeal in SA.Sr.No.101068 of 2023 is also
stands rejected at S.R. stage itself. No costs.
11.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
shr
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode
2. The District Munsif, Thiruchengode.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
P.T.ASHA, J.,
shr
C.M.P.No.22297 of
i
n
S.A.SR.No.101068 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.22297 of 2023
11.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
