K.P.Chandrasekaran v. P.S.Jairajagopal And 9 Others

Reserved on: 29.04.2024

Pronounced on: 07.06.2024 A. No.2281 of 2024 in C.S. No. 62 of 1933 P.B.BALAJI, J.

Application in A.No.2281 of 2024, is filed seeking to implead the Applicant/10th respondent in OA. No.142 of 2024 in C.S. No.62 of 1933.

2. The Applicant, in his affidavit filed in support of the Application has stated that the Temple is a Scheme Temple, Scheme having been framed by this Court in the year 1933. According to the Applicant, the Trustees are spoiling the name of the Temple and one of the Trustees is bankrupt, besides also guilty of indulging in forgery. The Applicant wants to support the Application in OA. No.142 of 2024 in C.S. No.62 of 1933.

3. I have heard N.Seshadri, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mr.M.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 7 and Dr.Suriya, learned Additional 1/4

Government Pleader for respondents 8 to 10.

4. The Applicant has also filed a better affidavit where he has divulged more details with regard to the allegations made against the Trustees Mr.Sarveswaran and Mr.Baskar. The Applicant has stated that he is running a School and he is providing free breakfast to the Students and he is a familiar face in Viswakarma Community in Tamil Nadu. He claims to be a believer and devotee of Goddess Kalikambal. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also filed a typed set of papers containing notices issued by Masseys Enterprises Private Limited and also plaint and written statement in OS. No.3947 of 2019.

5. The present Applicant only wants to implead himself as 10th respondent in the said O.A. No.142 of 2024, which has been filed for mandatory injunction to restrain the 2nd respondent from acting as the Managing Trustee, being ineligible as per Clauses 5 (c), (e) and (f) of the Scheme Decree.

2/4

6. I have already heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in OA. No.142 of 2024 and separate orders are being passed in the said Applications. Therefore, I do not find any proper or justifiable reason, especially in the light of what has been stated in the affidavit in support of the impleading Application and better affidavit filed thereafter, as to why the Applicant is a proper and necessary party to OA. No.142 of 2024.

7. The Applicant is not going to add any value to the said Application filed in OA. No.142 of 2024 and therefore, I do not see any reason whatsoever to allow impleadment of the Applicant as 10th respondent in OA. No.142 of 2024.

8. In fine the Application is dismissed.

07.06.2024 rkp 3/4

P.B.BALAJI, J, rkp Pre-delivery ORDER in A. No.2281 of 2024 in C.S. No. 62 of 1933 (1⁄2) 07.06.2024 4/4