Sasikumar v. Chenniappan Nadar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP Nos. 682 and 683 of 2024 and CMP No.3449 of 2024

¶1SASIKUMAR Nadar, S/o.K.Rajan Nadar, No.54, Kalimedu, Dharapuram Road, Kangayam Taluk, Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1Chenniappan Nadar S/o.Palaniyappa Nadar, Veenampalayam, Kadaiyur Post, Kangayam Via., Kangayam Taluk,

2.Ponnusamy Nadar S/o.Nachimuthu Nadar, P.Goundampalayam, Peruntholuvu Post, P.K.Palayam Via, Tiruppur Dist.

3.Subramani Nadar S/o.Arumugam Nadar, Akkaraipatti, Devimangalam Post, Trichy District.

4.Arujunan Nadar S/o.Semalaiappa Nadar, Kollukkadu, Chinnaaraiyapatti, Maduraiyaanvalasu Post, Tiruppur Via., Tiruppur Taluk,

5.Balasubramani Nadar S/o.Palaiyappa Nadar, Meenachipuram, Nagaipillai Thottam, Kozhinchivadi, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District. 1 of Page 6

6.Kittusamy Nadar S/o.Karuppan Nadar, Kosavampalayam, Kangayam Viz., Kangayam Taluk,

7.Shakthivel Nadar S/o.C.Palanisamy Nagar, No.52, Vadakku Vinayagar Kovil Theru, Udaiyampalayam, Coimbatore 1

8.R.Srinivasan Nadar S/o.K.Rajan Nadar, D.No.54, Kalimedu Dharapuram Road, Kangayam Taluk,

9.S.Velusamy Nadar S/o.Shanmugam Nadar, Kadalikattupudur, kadaiyur Post, Kangayam Taluk, tiruppur District.

10.K.P.Shanmugam S/o.Palanisamy Nadar, No.2/84, Kallankattuvalasu, Uppupalayam Post, Vellakovil Via., Kangayam Taluk,

11.K.Murugesa Nadar S/o.Kittappa Nadar, No.7/580, Madhan Illam, Sakthi Nagar, Palladam Road, Pondgalur, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

12.M.Saravana Nadar S/o.Late Murugesh Nadar, Suriyanallur, Suriyanallur Post, Kundadam Via., Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.

13.M.Subramani Nadar S/o.Late Murugesh Nadar, Sadaiyappa Nadar, pappampalayam, Mettupalayam Post, Vellakovil Via., Kangayam Taluk, 2 of Page 6

14.P.Chandrasekaran S/o.Palanisamy Nadar, Ellappanaickenvalasu, Veerachimangalam Post, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.

15.Sundarappa Nadar S/o.Late Kaliappa Nadar, Kadalaikattupudur, Kadaiyur Post, Kadaiyur Village, Kangayam Taluk,

16.J.Senthil S/o.Jothi Nadar, Masanallampalayam, Konguttipalayam, Pollakkalipalayam Via., Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District. Respondent(s) PRAYER in CRP Nos.682 and 683 of 2024: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order (Common Order) passed in I.A.Nos.199 and 200 of 2020 in O.S.No.262 of 2017 dated 16.08.2023 on the file of District Munsif Court, at Kangayam. For Petitioner(s): Mr. N. Chinnaraj For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Regunathan for R1 COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions are filed challenging the common order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner, seeking to i) implead himself as party defendant in the suit in O.S.No.262 of 2017, filed by the first respondent for bare injunction restraining the other 3 of Page 6 respondents, who were arrayed as defendants in the suit from interfering with his right to conduct poojas in the suit temple, ii) and also to implead himself as party respondent in I.A.No.1102 of 2017 filed by the first respondent seeking temporary injunction. Pending suit, the first respondent filed the above said application in I.A.No.1102 of 2017. The petitioner herein, claiming himself as a member of the suit temple, filed the said impleading applications and the same were dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

¶2The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that trial in the suit was already over and now the suit is posted for arguments.

¶3It is not disputed that the first respondent filed a suit for bare injunction against other respondents and the petitioner has not been arrayed as a party in the suit. The suit prayer for permanent injunction is a personal remedy sought for by the plaintiff against the parties arrayed as defendants. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is dominous litis, and a third party cannot dictate to the plaintiff regarding the person, with whom he has to fight. Even assuming that a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the first respondent, the same will bind only the defendants arrayed in the suit, namely, the other respondents. Any decree passed in the suit will not affect the rights of 4 of Page 6 the petitioner in any way, as he was not made as a party. Having regard to the fact that the relief sought for in the suit is personal remedy for permanent injunction, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶4Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.12.2025 Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif, Kangayam. 5 of Page 6

S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST

08.12.2025 6 of Page 6