Madras High Court
M.Harikrishnan vs The Executive Officer on 26 September, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.905 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.905 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5235 of 2019
1.M.Harikrishnan
2.H.Audhish Kumar
for themselves and as the
representative of
Hindu Nadar Samuthayam of Mukkudal
... Petitioners / Petitioners/ Plaintiffs
Vs.
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Muthumalaiamman Temple,
Mukkudal Village,
Cheranmahadevi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent / Respondent / Defendant
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated
04.02.2019, in I.A.No.430 of 2017 in O.S.No.79 of 2017 on the file of
the Sub Court, Ambasamudram.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.905 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the petitioners / plaintiffs and the
respondents herein are the respondent / defendant before the Court
below.
2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against
the order, dated 04.02.2019, in I.A.No.430 of 2017 in O.S.No.79 of
2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would
vehemently submit that in a suit filed under a representative capacity
and when an application was filed, for seeking permission to pursue the
suit under the representative capacity, the petitioners can only implead
the persons having the same interest and not the objectors. It is the
further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that
if at all if anybody has objection in respect of the application seeking
permission to contest the suit in a representative capacity, their only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.905 of 2019
remedy is to file an impleading application under Order 1 Rule 10
C.P.C. Therefore, would contend that the order of the Court below,
directing the petitioners to implead the objectors as defendant, is
erroneous. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
4. Despite respondent's name printed, no one is appeared on
their behalf.
5. I have given my anxious consideration on either side
submissions.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has raised
an interesting issue, however, he would fairly concede that the
precedents of this Court is not in his favour. His only contention is that
when the objectors are objecting the representative capacity, they
should only file impleading application Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, and that
they cannot have any objection in under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C
application, which is only appealing, the persons, those who are having
same interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.905 of 2019
7. Here the words “same interest”, has got significant
meaning. The very suit has been filed for on behalf of the Hindu Nadar
Samudhayam of Mukkudal Village and sought for a declaration in
respect of the property. That property belongs to the Hindu Nadar
Samudhayam of Mukkudal Village. Therefore, the interest of the
revision petitioners in Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. application and the
interest of the objector is upon the Hindu Nadar Samudhayam and his
property. However, the objector is having grievance only in respect of
the representative capacity of the petitioner. Therefore, the very
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
objector did not have same interest as that of the petitioner cannot be
accepted at all.
8. Therefore, the very objections filed by the petitioners is
maintainable and in pursuance of the objection, the Court below by
referring various judgment of this Court and more particularly, a
judgment of this Court held in C.R.P.(MD)No.2313 of 2013
( Vellaigounder @ Kuppu Vs. Chinnasevi Gounder), dated 09.10.2014,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.905 of 2019
has directed the petitioners herein to implead the 16 objectors as the
defendants to the suit.
9. In the above judgment, this Court has explained the Order
1 Rule 8 C.P.C and has held that the person having no objection, need
not come to the Court. If any person comes with an objection, then it is
the duty of the plaintiffs to make them as a party, without driving them
on their own, to get themselves impleaded as a party / defendants.
Based reliance upon those judgments, the Court below has rightly
allowed the application and directed the petitioners herein to implead
the objectors as the defendant. This Court could not find any infirmity
in the order passed by the Court below.
10. In the result, the instant Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes/No 26.09.2023
Index :Yes/No
Ls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.905 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
Ls
To
1.The Sub Court,
Ambasamudram.
2.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Muthumalaiamman Temple,
Mukkudal Village,
Cheranmahadevi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
C.R.P(MD)No.905 of 2019
26.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
