Vairamuthu v. R. Manickam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.04.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and C.M.P(MD)No.11802 of 2017 1.Vairamuthu 2.Kanagaraj 3.Sakthivel 4.Senthilkumar ... Petitioners/ Respondents/Plaintiffs Vs.

1.R.Manickam 2.R.Eswaramoorthy 3.Sankar 4.Maruthanayagam 5.T.V.M.Manimegalai 6.Kanagaraj 7.Vairamani 8.Rajammal 9.Udhayasuriyan 10.Pommuraj 11.Thenmozhi 12.Suganthi 13.Kanagaraj 14.Rathinampillai 15.Tamilselvan 16.Rathinakumar 17.Marudhanayagam 18.Rasathi 19.Subramani 20.Muthulakshmi 21.Vairammal 22.Muthukaruppan 23.Arukkani 24.Rajalingam 25.Anjalammal 26.Rajendran 27.Sivakami 28.Anjalammal 29.Palanisamy 30.Panjavarnam 31.Kaliyappan 32.Kannammal 33.Kaliyappan 34.Jeyammal 1/3

35.Palanisamy 36.Rajalingam 37.Periyasamy 38.Amaravathi 39.Dhanalakshmi 40.Vasanthamani 41.Rajalingam 42.Jeyaprakasam 43.Venkitachalam Rayan 44.Lakshmi 45.Arukkani 46.Kanthasamy 47.Balamurugan 48.Gomathi 49.Ramasamy 50.Vijayalakshmi 51.Chellammal 52.Periyasamy 53.Palaniyammal ... Respondents 1 to 53/ Petitioners/Third Parties 54.Kuppusamy 55.Rajamanickam 56.Ramasamy 57.Karuppusamy 58.Periyasamy 59.K.Marudhanayagam 60.Kanthasamy

...Respondents 54 to 60/

Respondents/Defendants PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off I.A.No.80 of 2017 in O.S.No.318 of 2016 from the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karur. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sridharan For Respondent : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj for R-1 to R-53 No Appearance for R-54 to R-60

ORDER

The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in representative capacity, representing the village people of Thirumanickampatti. The said suit was filed with a prayer that the defendants or their agents, should not disturb or demolish a particular temple and they should not 2/3

disturb the religious activities of the plaintiffs in the said temple. The plaintiffs further prayed that the defendants should not collect any money illegally as donation for the new temple. As per Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, publication was made, calling for objection from the villagers. A group of persons have filed I.A.No.80 of 2017 with a prayer that their objections shall be recorded. However, there is no prayer for getting themselves impleaded in the suit. Taking of the application on file itself is challenged in the revision petition. When no orders have been passed in I.A.No.80 of 2017, this Court does not find any dispute in the said application. According to both the counsels, I.A.80 of 2017 is still pending. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the said application in the light of Order 1 Rule 8(3) of Code of Civil Procedure.

3. With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) gbg Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To 1.The Additional District Munsif, Karur.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.G. SRIDHARAN, Advocate ( SR-17661[F] dated 08/04/2022 ) 08.04.2022 RD(04/05/2022) 3P 5C 3/3