[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Chockalingam vs Sri Kasi Nattukkottai Nagara Sathram on 13 May, 2026
CRP(MD) NO. 1348 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-05-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
CRP(MD) NO. 1348 of 2026
Chockalingam
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.Sri Kasi Nattukkottai Nagara Sathram
Managing Society through its Secretary,
No.110/3, West Vadampokki Street,
Karaikudi - 630 001,
Sivagangai District.
2.Sri Kasi Nattukkottai Nagara Sathiram
Managing Society through its Election Officer (2026)
and former President L.Narayanan,
No.110/3, West Vadampokki Street,
Karaikudi - 630 001,
Sivagangai District.
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Nallathambi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
for Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan for R1
Prayer:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
to call for the entire records relating to judgment dated 30.04.2026 passed in
C.M.A.No.2 of 2026 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai
confirming fair and decretal order dated 18.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in
O.S.No.36 of 2026 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi and set
aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
The petitioner herein has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition
challenging the dismissal of the interim mandatory injunction application for
permitting him to contest in the election of the first respondent Society for the
period 2026-2029. This interim application was dismissed by the Trial Court on
the ground that since the election process has commenced, the petitioner is not
entitled for any interim relief. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed a
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the Sub Court,
Devakottai. The Appellate Court has also accepted the view of the Trial Court and
confirmed the dismissal of the application for interim injunction vide order dated
30.04.2026.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein
was nominated by Kandavarayanpatti Village as a general body member for the
purpose of constituting the voters for selecting the members of the Board for
managing the first respondent Society. He has also filed his nomination for
contesting to the post of Vice President in the Society and his nomination was
rejected on the ground that he was facing a criminal case. Since his nomination is
rejected, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2026 along with an application for
interim mandatory injunction as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The first respondent Society has contested the suit and filed a counter. It
was stated that since the petitioner is facing a criminal case in C.C.No.1821 of
2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, his nomination has
not been accepted. It was further contended that since the election process has
already started, no interim protection can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
These submissions were accepted by the Trial Court and no interim protection was
granted.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the first respondent. I have also gone through the records.
5. As per the bye-laws of the first respondent Society, the group of villages
are eligible to nominate their representatives to constitute a General Body, who are
eligible to vote and elect the Managing Committee/Board of the first respondent
Society. In this case, the petitioner herein was nominated from Kandavarayanpatti
Village along with 9 others. However, his nomination has been rejected on the
ground that he is a facing a criminal case. Further, the records reveal that since the
first respondent Society has been registered under the Uttar Pradesh Societies
Registration Act, 1860, amended Act, 2021, the petitioner has been disqualified
for holding the office in Society. However, on perusal of Section 16A of the Act,
it only speaks about the disqualification after conviction and it does not deal with
the pending criminal cases against its members or the persons holding the post in
the Managing Committee. Hence, it is prima facie established that the reasons for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rejection is not proper. However it has been submitted that since the election
process has commenced, the same shall not be stalled and if injunction is granted,
it would amount to allowing the suit in the interim application itself.
6. I am of the view that prima facie, the rejection of the petitioner's
nomination on the ground of pendency of criminal case is not valid, he shall be
given opportunity to participate in the voting process subject to the outcome of
this Civil Revision Petition, since there are other technical grounds raised by the
first respondent Society, which includes the maintainability of the relief claimed in
the suit. Further, the petitioner is allegedly disqualified for financial
misappropriation in another Temple Trust and also, his nomination by the Village
is not proper.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner herein is
permitted to cast his vote in the election of the first respondent Society, which is
scheduled to be held on 16.05.2026 and his ballot shall be kept separately in a
sealed cover. This interim order is subject to further orders passed at the time of
disposal of this revision.
8. Post the matter after vacation.
13-05-2026
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Munsif Court,
Karaikudi.
2.The Subordinate Court,
Devakottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
