AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.R. Ramalingam, J.—This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Sub Judge, Namakkal in I.A. No. 106 of
1992 in A.S. No. 5 of 1989 whereby he has negatived the prayer in that I.A. for withdrawing the suit in O.S. No. 875 of 1982 on the file of the
District Munsif, Namakkal under Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action.
The said I.A. No. 106 of 1992 appears to have been filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs before the Sub Court, Namakkal seeking permission to
withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action on the basis that the suit itself has been filed only on behalf of Perungudi
Kulam Kongu Vellalargal and it should have been filed on behalf of Perungudi Kulam Kongu Vellalargal living in Salem, Periyar and Coimbatore
Districts also and since contest has been made in the written statement to the effect that Poojarigal also have to be impleaded as necessary parties
and thereby those formal defects have to be set right with fresh suit or otherwise, the plaintiffs may have to lose their case in the appeal and
consequent proceedings.
On the other hand, the said I.A. No. 106 of 1992 has been resisted by the respondent/defendants by saying that at the stage of appeal,
allegation as if there are formal defects cannot be accepted and the trial Court has disposed of the suit and now it amounts to introducing a new
cause of action and new cause and thereby it is liable to be dismissed.
After having considered the contentions of either side, the Sub Judge, Namakkal has dismissed the petition by staying that the suit in O.S. No.
875 of 1982 has already been dismissed by the District Munsif, Namakkal after full trial and the alleged material defects at the appellate stage
cannot be entertained since it appears to introduce a new cause of action and new case by changing the nature and character of the suit. Aggrieved
against such order, this revision petition has been filed.
The fact remains that already C.R.P. No. 2701 of 1993 has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the earlier dismissal of 1.A. No. 106
of 1992 in A.S. No. 5 of 1989 and an order has been passed by this Court directing the appellate Court viz., Sub Court Namakkal to reconsider
the application filed under Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C. and pass appropriate orders keeping in view of the grounds mentioned above and with that
observation, the civil revision was allowed.
Further, the reason given in support of the petition under Order 23, Rule 1, C.PC. to the effect that the plaintiffs want to file the suit on behalf of
Perungudi Kulam Kongu Vellalargal residing at Namakkal Taluk as well as the other people of the same community living in various Districts viz.,
Coimbatore, Erode, Salem etc., in representative capacity and the Poojaris who claim hereditary rights also have to be impleaded as parties, in my
view, appear to be sustainable to avoid multiplicity of proceedings that may be taken in future either by the Poojaris or by the community people
residing in various other Districts. That is why the earlier civil revision petition also appears to have been allowed with the direction to the Sub
Court, Namakkal to reconsider such question of withdrawal. Therefore, in such circumstances, the revision deserves to be allowed and the order
of the Sub Judge, Namakkal in I. A. No. 106 of 1992 in A.S. No. 5 of 1989 has to be set aside.
In the result, the revision is allowed. I.A. No. 106of 1992 is allowed and the Sub Judge, Namakkal is directed to pass appropriate orders in
respect of giving time for filing fresh suit on the same cause of action and connected legal aspects. The connected C.M.P. is closed.