M.Ramalingam And 3 Others v. M/S South India Senguntha Mahajana Sangam And 17 Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
1. M.Ramalingam
2. R.T.Kannan
3. R.Radhakrishnan
4. S.Alagesan ...Applicants ..Vs..
1. M/s.South Indian Sengunatha Mahajana Sangam, Represented by its General Secretary, R.P.Kumaragurubaran, No.58, Armenian Street, Chennai - 600 001.
2. K.P.K.Selvaraj President, M/s.South Indian Sengunatha Mahajana Sangam, No.58, Armenian Street, Chennai - 600 001.
3. R.P.Kumaragurubaran General Secretary, M/s.South Indian Sengunatha Mahajana Sangam, No.58, Armenian Street, Chennai - 600 001.
4. R.Gandhi Treasur, M/s.South Indian Sengunatha Mahajana Sangam, No.58, Armenian Street, Chennai - 600 001.
1/5
5. M.E.Jayaraman
6. J.Babu
7. M.Mylappan
8. V.Ramdas
9. R.Dhandapani 10.R.Rajendran 11.T.P.Saravanan 12.A.Annadurai 13.Gnanasekaran 14.S.Karthikeyan 15.N.Adithiya 16.P.G.Ramanathan 17.Prabhoji ... Respondents Prayer: This application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules r/w Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, seeking leave of the Court to file the Additional Documents as plaint documents as Serial Nos.(43) to (67) as mentioned herein in the plaint in C.S.No.173 of 2023. For Applicants : Ms.R.Thilagavathy, Senior Counsel for M/s.D.Kanagasundaram For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah for RR1 to 4 Mr.S.P.Chokkalingam for RR5, 9, 11, 13 and 15 - No Appearance Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel for M/s.A.Jegadeeswari for R16 R6 - Unserved R7, R8, R10, R12, R14 and R17 - Served - No Appearance 2/5
ORDER
This application has been seeking leave of the Court to file additional documents as plaint documents as Serial Nos.(43) to (67) as mentioned herein in the plaint in C.S.No.173 of 2023. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would submit that to substantiate the proposed amendments and to prove the procedural violations in the conduct of the election conducted by the Election Officer, it is necessary to bring on record the additional documents sought to be included in the plaint as plaint documents.
Learned counsel for the respondents raised objections on the ground that the prayer in the main suit itself is not maintainable and the proposed amendments also will introduce new cause of action, which will alter the nature and character of the suit. Therefore the documents sought to be marked are no way helpful to decide the suit. 3/5
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
This Court already dismissed the two applications seeking amendment and impleadment of the Election Officer as devoid of merit and substances. This applications is a consequential in nature, which is filed only to support the contents of the said two applications. Therefore these documents need not be received as no relevance to decide the case. Accordingly, this applications stands dismissed. 27.10.2025 cgi (3/3) 4/5
P.DHANABAL, J.
cgi 27.10.2025 5/5