Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2611/2026 of P.Radhakrishnan Vs Madurai East Sandaipettai Na on 23 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2611 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011212322026}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD)No.13012 of 2026
1.P.Radhakrishnan
2.Y.Sathiyamoorthy
.. Petitioners
Vs.
1.Madurai East Sandaipettai Nadar Uravinmurai, Through its Secretary having office at D.No.5 Kondi Thozhu North Street Kamarajar Salai Madurai - 625 009.
2.The District Registrar (Societies)
Madurai (South)
having office at Palace Road
Madurai - 625 001.
3.L.Thamburaj M.A. B.L.
Election Officer
Madurai East Sandaipettai Nadar Uravinmurai Madurai.
having office at D.No.5, Kondi Thozhu North Street Kamarajar Salai Madurai - 625 009.
..Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.443 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town dated 03.02.2026 and allow the application and pass such other further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajaraman
For Respondents : Mr.I.Pinaygash – for R2
Special Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.443 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.443 of 2021, instituted seeking a declaration that the election notification dated 17.09.2021 issued by the third respondent is invalid, null and void, and for a consequential injunction restraining the third respondent from conducting the election to the first respondent Society, scheduled to be held on 10.10.2021 at Madurai, on the basis of the allegedly fabricated voters’ list prepared by the first respondent.
3. The petitioners have also sought a mandatory injunction directing the third respondent/election officer to conduct the election to the first respondent Society after carrying out necessary corrections in the existing voters’ list by including the names of genuine voters, besides other consequential reliefs.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 4 of 2024 under Order I Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to prosecute the suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Madurai East Sandaipettai Nadar Uravinmurai. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application was dismissed by the trial Court mainly on two grounds, namely, that the suit had originally been instituted by the petitioners in their individual capacity and that the plaint did not contain any averment to the effect that the petitioners had been authorised or directed to represent the Society or its members. The learned counsel further submitted that the members of the Society supported the petitioners and desired that the petitioners should represent their common interest. It was therefore contended that the petitioners ought to have been permitted to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.
6. Mr. I. Pinaygash, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent, opposed the Civil Revision Petition. He submitted that the suit had been instituted by the petitioners only in their individual capacity and that they could not, at a belated stage, seek permission to prosecute the suit on behalf of the Society or all its members under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. The trial Court, while dismissing the application, observed that the petitioners had neither pleaded that numerous persons had a common interest in the subject matter of the suit nor stated that they were representing the common interest of the members of the Madurai East Sandaipettai Nadar Uravinmurai Society. The trial Court further noted that the suit had been instituted in the year 2021, whereas the application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed only in the year 2024. The petitioners had also failed to establish that they had a common interest with the members whom they sought to represent.
8. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the suit was instituted in the common interest of the general body members of the Society and that, therefore, they should be permitted to prosecute the suit on behalf of all the members of the Madurai East Sandaipettai Nadar Uravinmurai under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. However, the petitioners themselves have admitted that the plaint does not contain any averment to the effect that they were authorised to institute or prosecute the suit on behalf of the Society or its members. No authorisation letter, resolution or other supporting document has been produced to establish that the Society or its members had authorised the petitioners to represent them in the suit.
10. The suit was originally instituted by the petitioners in their individual capacity. The petitioners have further admitted that the Society consists of approximately 540 members. If the petitioners intended to prosecute the suit in the common interest of all the members of the Society, they were required to establish the existence of the requisite common interest and the circumstances justifying the invocation of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mere assertion that the suit was filed in the interest of the general body members is not sufficient.
11. Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is intended to facilitate the adjudication of disputes involving numerous persons having the same interest in one suit. The provision cannot be invoked as a matter of course, particularly when the suit was originally instituted in the individual capacity of the plaintiffs and the application seeking representative status was filed after a considerable delay. The petitioners have not placed any material before the Court to establish that they were authorised to represent the Society or that the members of the Society had a common interest in the subject matter of the suit warranting the grant of permission under the said provision.
12. The application was filed nearly three years after the institution of the suit. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for the delay. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and the materials placed before it, rightly concluded that the requirements for invoking Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been established.
13. This Court finds no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the trial Court committed any error in dismissing I.A. No. 4 of 2024.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.4 of 2024 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
23.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To The Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2611 of 2026 23.09.2026