Madras High Court
S.Utchimakali vs Kombu @ Chellammal on 21 March, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2063 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD) No.9461 of 2022
1. S.Utchimakali
2. V.Govintharaman
3. S.Kuthalam
4. R.Subbaiah ... Petitioners/Petitioners/
Plaintiffs
(Petitioners represented on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of people who
are residing at Gopalasamuthram,
Velankuzhi, Veeravanallur and
Pathamadai and worshiping the lord Sri
Arulmighu Karguvel Ayyanar Parivar
Theivam)
Vs.
Kombu @ Chellammal ... Respondent/Respondent
Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the fair and
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.110 of 2021, on the file
of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, dated 12.07.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil
ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.110 of 2021, on the file of the I Additional
District Court, Tirunelveli, have filed the present Civil Revision Petition
challenging the dismissal of their application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of
C.P.C.
2. The plaintiffs herein have filed the above said suit for the relief of
declaration that the suit schedule property and 24 Deities belong to the
community of the plaintiffs and the defendant should not interfere with the
administration of those 24 Deities. At the time of filing the suit, the long
cause title as well as the short cause title reveals that it has been filed in the
representative capacity on behalf of Yadava Community people residing in
Gopalasamuthram, Vellankuzhi, Veeravanallur and Pathamadai and who are
the devotees of Karguvel Sastha. However, an application under Order 1 Rule
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
8 of C.P.C., was not filed along with the suit. Four days after the filing of the
suit, I A.No.1 of 2021 was filed before the trial Court and there was no
objection from any one of the general public from the said community.
However, the said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court on the
following grounds:
a) The plaintiffs have not pleaded that there is
a Trust or Association which administered the
temple, which is said to be belonging to the people
residing in the above said villagers.
b) The application having not been filed along
with the plaint, is not maintainable, in view of the
fact that it has been filed only to fill up the lacuna.
c) No document has been filed on the side of
the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were given power to
representing the villagers.
Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners, only in cases where there is no registered Organization or
Association and the suit is filed on behalf of general public of a particular
locality, Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C., can be invoked and therefore, the finding of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
the learned trial Judge that there is no registered Trust or Association is not
legally sustainable. He further contended that the application under Order 1
Rule 8 of C.P.C can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. He also relied
upon the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in
2024 (2) CTC 713 ( A.Seshadri and 5 others Vs.Church of South India,
represented by its Moderator and 5 others) and 2022 (1) CTC 207 (Kulalar
Peravai and others Vs.A.S.S.nataraj and others).
4. The learned counsel further pointed out that after paper publication,
there was no objection from the Community people residing in the said
locality. In such circumstances, the trial Court was not right in arriving at a
finding that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that they
have been authorized by the general public of that Community.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein
had contended that the petitioners are not the real representative of the people
who are worshipping Sri Arulmighu Karguvel Ayyanar Parivara Theivam,
which is located at Gopalasamuthram and therefore, he prayed for dismissal
of this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The application under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C., filed by the plaintiffs
is only to represent the general public belonging to a particular community
who are residing in a certain locality. In case, if there is a Trust or Association
they need not invoke Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. Only in the absence of any
organization, the question of invoking under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C., would
not arise. Therefore, such a finding of the trial Court is not sustainable.
8. The trial Court has further found that the application has not been
filed along with the plaint and therefore, to fill up the lacuna, the present
application has been filed belatedly. In view of the Hon'ble Division Bench
judgment cited above, the application under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C, can be
filed even at the appellate stage. Therefore, the said finding is also not
sustainable.
9. The trial Court has further found that the plaintiffs/petitioners have
not produced any documents to show that the villagers have given power to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
represent. Only in order to find out whether the plaintiffs/petitioners could
represent the villagers, paper publication is contemplated under Order 1 Rule
8 of C.P.C. In the present case, the paper publication has been effected and
there is no objection from any one of the people of that community, who are
residing in the said locality. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs need not
produce any record to establish that they have been authorized by the
villagers. Any how, that there was no objections from any one of the villagers
and it would show that the plaintiffs have been accepted to be the
representative by the villagers who are the devotees of Arulmigu Karguvel
Ayyanar Parivara Theivam.
10. Viewed from any angle, the reasons assigned by the trial Court for
dismissing the said application are not sustainable in law and the order
impugned in the revision petition is set aside. The application filed under
Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C., is only for the purpose of representing the villagers
for the suit and not for I.A.No.1 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
11. With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition
stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
21.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The I Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.2063 of 2022
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2063 of 2022
21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:44:54 pm )
