CRP/5078/2026 of Subramanian Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu on 7 September 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.SP.Chockalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents.

2. The revision petitioner challenges the dismissal order in I.A. No.5 of 2025, refusing to condone the delay of 968 days, in filing the Application to restore the suit.

3. On hearing the learned counsel petitioner as well as the respondents, I find that suit has been filed in representative capacity by one Subramanian, who was the then Natamaitharar of Senguntha Mudaliar community of Pachal Village, for permanent injunction to restrain the official respondents who are defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession of Pavadi lands.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that there is also a temple which is accessed through the said Pavadi lands and only because of the tenure of the then Natamaitharar expiring, and subsequently, there has been a communication gap, the suit could not be restored within a period of two and half year. Admittedly today, the very same plaintiff who then represented the community is not entitled to prosecute the suit as he is no longer the present Natamaitharar, according to the petitioner who changes every years.

4. Mr.S.P.Chockalingam, learned counsel also relied on two decisions of this Court in A.Gurusamy Vs. The Assitant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Bhavani Taluk and Ors, reported in, 2012 (2) C.L.T. 654 and Gurusamypalayam Sengunthar Marriage Hall Building, Rep. by Administrative Committee by its President cum Community head Mr.A.S. Ramasamy (Died), Now. Mr.A.Thyagarajan Vs. K.A.Marimuthu and others, in S.A. No.893 of 2024, dated 09.12.2025, where the right and interest of Pavadi lands have been discussed by this Court in great length. He would therefore state that for the fault of the representative who was then Natamaitharar, the entire community should not suffer. At the same time, considering the fact that today the plaintiff who represented the community is not the Natamaitharar, and there is no useful purpose even condoning the delay and restoring the suit, further amendment will have to be carried out.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that injunction being only a continuing cause of action, there can be no limitation for seeking relief of injunction. He would also state that the only technical objection that may be put against the petitioner is res judicata. He would further state that the community is now proposing to file a suit for declaration and with proper cause title and seeks for an order protecting the interest of community by not permitting the official respondents to raise the plea of the res judicata in the said suit.

6. Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents states that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the condone delay application finding that no sufficient cause has been shown and no interference is warranted in revision.

7. Admittedly, the Court has found that no sufficient cause has been shown. However, the petitioner who was only the plaintiff in representative capacity and for the fault of one person, the entire community should not be affected, especially when the dispute is in respect of Pavadi lands. This Court has decided the nature of Pavadi lands in A.Gurusamy and Gurusamypalayam Sengunthar Marriage Hall Building, Rep. by Administrative Committee by its President cum Community heads' cases and held that it is for the benefit of the entire community people.

8. In the light of the above and also considering the fact that the community now proposes to file a regular suit, also seeking the larger relief of declaration, I do not see any useful purpose in interfering in revision, moreover, when there is no infirmity in the order dismissing the condone delay application.

9. However, it is made clear that while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, in the event of the community intending to prefer a separate suit, then it shall not be dismissed on the ground of res judicata, especially since I am also not able to discern from the records as to whether any prior application filed seeking leave to file the suit in representative capacity was taken out in the first place. In the light of the above, it was the fault of one person viz., Subramanian, who approached the Court, the entire community should not suffer.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed reserving liberty for the Mudaliar Community of Pachal Village, to seek for necessary relief of declaration and permanent injunction, if advised, before the competent Court and the dismissal of the suit filed by Mr.Subramainan, will not be put against the Community. No costs. 07.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP

P.B.BALAJI, J. rkp To

1. The Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

2. The Secretary. Collectorate of Namakkal, Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal District, Namakkal District.

3. District Revenue Officer, District Collector Complex, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

4. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, District Collectorate Complex, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

5. Cooperative Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Pachal Village, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District. CRP. No.5078 of 2026 07.09.2026