R. Arul Jothi v. Thirumagal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and CMP.No.16687 of 2025 R.Arul Jothi ... Petitioner Vs.

Seethalakshmi (Deceased) Ranganayagi (Deceased) 1.

Thirumagal 2.

Anbumudi 3.

Manivannan 4.

Elangovan 5.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

6.

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Srirangam, Trichy.

Ramasamy (Deceased) Chinnasamy (Deceased) Rathinam (Deceased) Govindasamy Mudaliar (Deceased) 7.

Pandurangan

8.

Savithri 9.

Sudha 10.

Vembu 11.

Thirugnanam 12.

Sambasivam 13.

Varadharajan 14.

Manonmani 15.

Krishnamoorthy 16.

Thamizharasi 17.

Periyanayagi 18.

Amsayaal 19.

Chinnathambi 20.

Gunasundari 21.

Kolanji 22.

Amudha 23.

Kanagasabai 24.

Sekar ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 06.03.2025 passed in Unnumbered I.A.of 2025 in O.S.No. 1 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge-I, Jayankondam and allow the Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.Chenthoori Pugazendhi For R5 & R6 : Mr.N.Muthuvel, Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the docket order dated 06.03.2025 passed in unnumbered I.A. SR No. of 2025 in O.S. No. 1 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge-I, Jayankondam.

2. The petitioner sought to implead himself in the suit. However, the trial Court returned the application on the ground that the affidavit does not clearly explain the reasons for filing the application.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also states that subsequently the suit has been dismissed for default and an application to restore the suit has been filed and the same is pending inquiry.

4. Be that as it may, if at all the trial Court had any issue regarding the maintainability of the application taken out by the revision petitioner to implead himself, the trial Court ought to have posted the matter for maintainability and given an opportunity to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. After hearing the counsel, the Court ought to have passed detailed orders on merits, without returning the application on the generic and vague ground that the affidavit does not disclose clear reasons as to why the application has been filed. However, considering that as on date the suit is not

on file, in the event the suit is restored, the revision petitioner shall be entitled to have the impleadment application heard by the learned trial Judge in open Court and thereafter, orders can be passed on the application in accordance with law.

5. The Registry is directed to return the original interlocutory application, the docket order of which is under challenge, to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to enable representation of the same at the appropriate stage before the trial court.

6. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs. 15.07.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No nsl To

1. The Special Sub Judge -I, Jayankondam.

2.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

3.

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Srirangam,Trichy.

P.B.BALAJI, J.

nsl 15.07.2025