Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Pattali Makkal Katchi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.7612 of 2026 --- Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its State General Secretary, Mr,Vadivel Ravanan, No.10, Thilak Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

..Petitioner/3rd party Vs

1. Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its Founder and President Dr.S.Ramadoss, No.63, Nathumuthu Naicken Street, Vanniya Tenampet, Chennai-600 018.

2. The Election Commission of India Rep. by its Secretary, Election Commission, Nirvachan Bhavan, Ashoka Road, New delhi.

3. The Chief Electoral Officer

Secretariat, Fot St.George, Chennai-9.

4. The District Collector No.62, Rajaji Sali, George Town, Chennai-01.

5. R.Anbumani ..Respondent(s) /Defendants CRP.No.1628 of 2026:

Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss ..Petitioner/ 4th defendant Vs M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its Founder and President Dr.S.Ramadoss, No.63, Nathumuthu Naicken Street, Vanniya Tenampet, Chennai-600 018.

..Respondent/Plaintiff CMP.No.7423 of 2026:- M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its Founder and President Dr.S.Ramadoss, No.63, Nathumuthu Naicken Street, Vanniya Tenampet, Chennai-600 018.

..Petitioner/Respondent.

1. The Election Commission of India Rep. by its Secretary, Election Commission, Nirvachan Bhavan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Electoral Officer Secretariat, Fot St.George, Chennai-9.

3. The District Collector No.62, Rajaji Sali, George Town, Chennai-01.

4. R.Anbumani

5. M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its State General Secretary, Mr,Vadivel Ravanan, No.10, Thilak Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

..Respondent/Petitioner.

CMP No. 7247 of 2026 Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its State General Secretary, Mr,Vadivel Ravanan, No.10, Thilak Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

..Appellant(s) Vs

6. Pattali Makkal Katchi

Rep. by its Founder and President Dr.S.Ramadoss, No.63, Nathumuthu Naicken Street, Vanniya Tenampet, Chennai-600 018.

7. The Election Commission of India Rep. by its Secretary, Election Commission, Nirvachan Bhavan, Ashoka Road, New delhi.

8. The Chief Electoral Officer Secretariat, Fot St.George, Chennai-9.

9. The District Collector No.62, Rajaji Sali, George Town, Chennai-01.

10.R.Anbumani ..Respondent(s) CMP No. 7612 of 2026 Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss ..Appellant(s) Vs M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its Founder and President Dr.S.Ramadoss, No.63, Nathumuthu Naicken Street, Vanniya Tenampet, Chennai-600 018.

..Respondent(s) Prayer in CRP.No.1530 of 2026:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directing the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, to take up the impleading application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.9 of 2026 in O.S.No.664 of 2026 within a time frame to be fixed by this court. Prayer in CMP No. 7247 of 2026 in CRP.No.1530/2026:- To grant an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.664/2026 pending on the file of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

Prayer in CMP No. 7423 of 2026 in CMP.No.7247 of 2026:- To vacate the interim stay order dated 12.03.2026 made in CMP No. 7247 of 2026 in CRP No. 1530 of 2026 on the file of this Honble Court. Prayer in CRP.No.1628 of 2026:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directing the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose the Application to produce the documents filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.10 of 2026 in O.S.No.664 of 2026 within a time frame fixed by this court. Prayer in CMP No. 7612 of 2026 in CRP.1628 of 2026:- To grant an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.664/2026 pending on the file of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Prayer in CMP.No.7450 of 2026 in CRP.SR.46688 of 2026:- To dispense with the production of the certified copy of the affidavit and petition in IA.No.10 of 2026 and the adjudication dated 11.03.2026 and pass such other suitable orders.

CMP Nos. 7423 of 2026 in CMP. 7247 of 2026 :

For Petitioner Mr.K.Arul For Respondent(s):

Mr.Nirajan Rajagopalan For R1 And R2 Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Silambarasan for R5 Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate for R3 Mrs.Chitra Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Balu for R4 In CRP.No.1530 of 2026:- For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Silambarasan For Respondents : Mr.K.Arul for R1 Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for R2 and R3 Mr.C.Sathish Govt.Advocate for R4 Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Balu for R5.

In CRP.No.1628 of 2026:- For Petitioner:

Mrs.Chitra Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Balu For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.Arul COMMON ORDER CRP.No.1530 of 2026 has been filed by Mr.Vadivel Ravanan, State General Secretary, Pattali Makkal Katchi, who is the 3rd Party in the suit in O.S.No.664 of 20206, filed petition in I.A.No.9 of 2026 praying to implead him as party defendant in the suit. The prayer in the CRP, was to direct the XIII

Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, to take up the impleading application filed by him in I.A.No.9 of 2026.

1(a). On 12.03.2026, when CRP.No.1530 of 2026 came up for admission, this court ordered notice to respondents returnable by 10.04.2206 and until then, stayed the further proceedings in O.S.No.664 of 2026. 1(b). In the mean time, CMP.No.7423 of 2026 is filed by the 1st respondent in CRP.No.1530/2026/plaintiff in O.S.No.664 of 2026 viz., The Founder and President Dr.S.Ramadoss representing M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi, to vacate the interim stay order dated 12.03.2026 made in CMP.No.7247 of 2026 in CRP.No.1530 of 2026.

1(c). CRP.No.1628 of 2026 has been filed by the 5th respondent in CRP.1530 of 2026/4th defendant in O.S.664 of 2026, praying to direct the XIII Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose the application filed by the petitioner/4th defendant in I.A.No.10 of 2026 in O.S.No.664 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026.

1(d). The said I.A.No.10 of 2026 has been filed to produce the documents as detailed below:-

(1) Copy of the Bye Law of the Pattali Makkal Katchi, which is in existence before the Plaint Doc.No.1

(2) Copy of the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, in support of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.30170 of 2025.

(3) Copy of the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, in support of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.3418 of 2026.

(4) Copy of the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, in support of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.6719 of 2026.

(5) Copy of the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, in support of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7108 of 2026.

(6) Copy of the affidavit and petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, in support of the Writ Petition in W.P. (C).No.18311 of 2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the Trial Court, there is a petition filed to reject the plaint in IA No.7 of 2026. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed IA No.9 of 2026 to implead the General Secretary

who is occupying the post of Pattali Makkal Katchi; without impleading him, the plaintiff has approached the trial court for declaratory relief by representing the said party. As he is a necessary party to the suit thereafter only, rejection of the plaint and other context ought to be considered by the Trial Court judge. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition seeking direction to dispose his petition in IA No.9 of 2026 before deciding the IA No.7 of 2026 for rejection of plaint.

3. Considering that this Court granted interim stay on 12.03.2026 made in CMP.No.7247 of 2026 and notice was ordered; thereafter, immediately, the respondent filed vacate stay petition in CMP No.7423 of 2026.

4. Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CMP No.7423 of 2026 stated that they have no objection to take such application in I.A.No.9 of 2026 before the Trial court and they are ready to cooperate with the proceedings.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that now there is change in circumstances; after filing of the revision, the Election Commission of India has announced the election date for Tamilnadu and

Puducherry Assembly and after that the courts below shall not pass any order obstructing the election process and to that effect, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the Election Commission of India vs Ashok Kumar and Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 para 32 extracted hereunder :

"32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove:

(1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.

(2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.

(3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a

case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law.

(4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court.

(5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material." The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that if any order passed, the same would cause obstruction to the election process. Therefore, all the Interlocutory Applications may be adjourned after the day of the election.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was a

internal dispute between the parties and therefore, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court for relief of declaration, which is only internal dispute between the plaintiff and officer bearers which is no way connected with the alleged election process. Thereby contend that the Trial Court may proceed with the IA in the manner known to law; for that, they also ready to cooperate with the trial and other interlocutory proceedings.

7. Admittedly, suit in O.S.No.664 of 2026 was filed by the first respondent / plaintiff seeking for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs, which reads as follows: A) "It is most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff by declaring that Dr.S.Ramadoss as the President with his team of office bearers of the plaintiff's party M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi with effect from 30.05.2025 to till date as advised by the Election Commission of India on 27.11.2025 appointed by the appropriate political forum amicably. B) It is further prayed to pass a judgment and decree by declaring that the Election Commission of India communication dated 04.12.2023 as invalid from 30.05.2025.

C) It is further prayed to pass a judgment and decree by declaring that the

Election Commission of India communication dated 30.07.2025 by allotting the symbol "Mango" is invalid and improper as they were issued without any authority and legality by the 1st defendant. D) It is further prayed to pass a judgment and decree by delcaring that the Election Commission of India communication dated 09.09.2025 by extending tenure are invalid and improper as they were issued without any authority and powers by the first defendant. E) It is further prayed before this Hon'ble Court that pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant and his henchman from interfering with the plaintiff's party affairs and the position of the President of Dr.S.Ramadass as there is continuous illegal threat and attempt by misusing the name of the plaintiff's party and its founder cum President Dr.S.Ramadass.

F) It is further prayed before this Hon'ble Court that pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant from using in the PMK party flag, party name, emblem and symbol "Mango", and G) Also to pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restating the 4th defendant and his henchman from having any Electoral alliance agreements with any political party in the name of plaintiff's party for the 2026 assembly elections as it is an act of illegality and misuse of party

name without any authority."

8. The plaintiff also filed Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.3 to 6 of 2025 and sought for interim relief against the fourth defendant. In the meanwhile, already Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has passed an order in W.P.Nos.6719 and 7108 of 2026 dated 20.02.2026, where prayer sought was "to quash the impugned order issued by the first respondent / Election Commission of India dated 04.12.2023 as invalid from 30.05.2025 as per its impugned order in para 1 and to direct the Election Commission of India to "Record" the name of the team of petitioner's political party headed by President Dr.S.Ramadoss and his team of office bearers as per the communication dated 17.12.2025 immediately for facing the 2026 General Assembly elections in the State of Tam,il Nadu and Puducherry with the symbol of "Mango".

The Division Bench having considered that since the dispute is between the office bearers and on hearing both sides, held that the writ petition was not maintainable and the same was dismissed. The main observation was that "Before parting with the case, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It goes without saying that depending upon the decree that may be passed in the civil suit, the Election Commission of India my be approached."

Already the Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, made an observation that depending upon the decree that may be passed in the civil suit, the Election Commission of India may be approached.

9. The prayer sought for in the plaint in O.S. 664 of 2026 is to declare the plaintiff as President of Pattali Makkal Katchi and for other reliefs. On considering the other related issues and all the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants and the reliefs sought by the proposed parties, it is transpired that they are pertaining to the unrecognized political party which also actively to participate in the election along with office bearers. Therefore, now at this juncture, if any order is passed with regard to the pending application, certainly, it would obstruct or protract the election process, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra (2000) 8 SCC 216.

10. Considering the relief claimed herein as well as other reliefs in the interlocutory applications before the trial court in which the Election Commission of India is one of the parties, if any order passed by the trial court Judge, it would have an obstruction to the election process. Therefore to meet the ends of justice, this Court stay all the interim applications, directing the trial court to proceed all the applications on or after 10.05.2026.

11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that they have not sought any interim relief against the Election Commission of India, therefore, such adjournment ordered by the trial court is unwarranted. But on seeing the fact that after filing the Civil Revision Petition, election date is announced by the Election Commission of India and all the reliefs sought by the parties are pertaining to the unrecognized political party which also activated to participate in the election, if any order is passed by the trial court, it would certainly affect the election process. Therefore, the trial court Judge is directed to take all the applications on or after 10.05.2026 not before that.

12. With the above observation, the above Civil Revision Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of. No costs. 17-03-2026 MTL Issue order copy on 18.03.2026

To

1. The Election Commission of India Rep. by its Secretary, Election Commission, Nirvachan Bhavan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Electoral Officer Secretariat, Fot St.George, Chennai-9.

3. The District Collector No.62, Rajaji Sali, George Town, Chennai-01.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

MTL and CMP.No.7612 of 2026 17-03-2026