CRP/2737/2023 of PADMAVATHY Vs A/M PADHALA PONNI AMMAN THIRU KOVIL on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in

O.S.No.5624 of 2017 dated 14.07.2023 on the file of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/first defendant under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a judgment on admission, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The first respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.5624 of 2017 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. The petitioner, who is the first defendant, filed I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.5624 of 2017 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass a judgment on admission based on the earlier judgment passed by this Court in A.S.No.248 of 2010. The Court below dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

4. The crux of the issue involved in the present case is as to whether the present suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff suffers from the same defect of not arraying ‘Manyadhars’ as a defendant in the suit. To understand the above issue, this Court has to take into consideration the earlier suit filed by the same temple against the petitioner herein in O.S.No.6012 of 2006 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a direction to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property and for permanent injunction and for future damages. The suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008. Aggrieved by the same, A.S.No.248 of 2010 was filed before this Court. The issue involved in that case was as to whether the suit is maintainable without arraying ‘Manyadhars’ as a defendant and without issuing notice to the ‘Manyadhars’ or their legal heirs. This Court, after dealing with the entire issue, answered the same as follows: “K.Question No.(iii)

15. In that view of the matter, I answer the question that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of vacant possession as well as a permanent injunction, in the present Appeal as filed by the plaintiff/Temple, not on merits but for the defect of not arraying the Manyadar as also a defendant in the suit for eviction. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, this Court being the Parens Patrea of the Idol and its property, as to ensure that proper steps were taken by the plaintiff/Temple to secure the property, it would be open for the plaintiff/Temple to file a fresh suit by arraying the Manyadhars and the defendant herein, jointly as defendants and file a fresh suit for eviction. Due pre-notice will also be issued in accordance with the law before proceeding as fresh. It would also be open for the authorities, in the meanwhile, to accept the defendant directly as a tenant under them on the appropriate amount of rent fixed by them, if they choose it to fit to be in the best interest of the Temple. In such a case, notice has to be issued to the Manyadhars or their legal heirs and a decision may be taken appropriately. L.In the Result:

(i) The Appeal Suit in A.S.No.248 of 2010 is dismissed, however, subject to the observations in the above paragraphs;

(ii) There will be no order as to costs.”

5. In the light above judgment passed by this Court, the petitioner/first defendant filed I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.5624 of 2017 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass a judgment based on admission on the ground that it is an admitted fact that the present suit also suffers from the very same defect. The Court below dismissed the application by going into the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the first respondent/plaintiff is wasting its time in prosecuting the present suit. Already liberty has been granted to the temple by this Court while passing the judgment in A.S.No.248 of 2010 to institute fresh proceedings after rectifying the defect. It is not known as to whether any steps were taken by the temple to take advantage of the said leave granted by this Court. Instead, the first respondent/temple is wasting their time by prosecuting the present suit which also suffers from the same defect. In any case, if according to the petitioner/first defendant, the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an appropriate application could have been filed before the Court below, instead, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been filed.

7. This Court is granting liberty to the petitioner/first defendant to move an appropriate application before the Court below under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by raising all grounds and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner/first defendant and first respondent/plaintiff. If any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of six (6) weeks thereof. In the mean time, the first respondent/plaintiff temple shall follow up with the earlier judgment passed by this Court in A.S.No.248 of 2010 dated 02.12.2022 since ultimately, the first respondent/plaintiff temple is seeking for recovery of possession from the petitioner/first defendant. This civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.2737 of 2023 13-10-2026