ARULMIGU ADHISAKTHI SIVA BALA SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU VAMANAPURESWARAR TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.536 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore. The revision is directed against the rejection of the plaint as per order in I.A.N.356 of 2001 dated 24.6.2002 which was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed the suit as the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiff and from conducting auction of the trees in the suit properties. It appears the suit was filed on 21.12.1999.

(3.) The respondent/defendant filed I.A.No.356 of 2001 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint, in that the plaintiff has not paid or deposited the cost as ordered in the previous suit O.S.No.120 of 1998 on the file of the same Court pursuant to the order in I.A.No.2 615 of 1999. In the affidavit of the respondent/defendant, it is stated that the revision petitioner/plaintiff previously filed the suit O.S.No.120 of 1998 against the respondent/defendant seeking permanent injunction from auctioning the trees and when the suit came up for trial, the plaintiff/revision petitioner, who filed that suit filed I.A.No.2615 of 1999 under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit O.S.No.120 of 1998 with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action and the said petition was allowed after contest on 18.1.2000, in which it was ordered that the plaintiff/ revision petitioner is to pay or deposit the cost of the suit at the time of filing fresh suit on the same cause of action. Though there was such an order, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has failed to deposit or pay the cost of the pervious suit and as such, the plaint is to be rejected.