DAYALU NAIDU Vs. A/M ARUNACHALESWARAR THIRUKOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the order and decreetal order dated 31.3.2005 made in I.A.No.6136 of 2005 in O.S.No.5376 of 1994, I.A.No.860 of 2005 in O.S.No.2161 of 1994 and I.A.No.2713 of 2005 in O.S.No.3349 of 2001 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, these civil revision petitions are filed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: The respondents are the plaintiffs who filed the suit against the petitioners/defendants for claiming vacant possession and damage for use and occupation. The petitioners/defendants have filed their written statements. The plaintiffs have stated that P.W.1 was examined and his cross-examination is pending. At this stage the defendants have filed applications in I.A.No.6136 of 2005 in O.S.No.5376 of 1994, I.A.No.860 of 2005 in O.S.No.2161 of 1994 and I.A.No.2713 of 2005 in O.S.No.3349 of 2001 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Madras to reject the plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. The said applications have been filed on the ground that the Executive Officer of the plaintiffs-temple is not competent person to file the suit.

(3.) MR. T.V. Krishnamachari the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the Executive Officer himself cannot file the suit unless the power is assigned to him by the commissioner. To support his case, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has pressed into service a judgment of a Division Bench of this Honourable reported in 2003-1-L.W.386 (Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode by its present Executive Officer, Sri Sabapathy vs. T.M. Muthuswamy Padayachi etc and others.) wherein this court has held as follows: "Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Sections 6(2), 45(2)--Powers and duties of the Executive Officer (E.0.) of a religious institution shall be as assigned to him by the Commissioner under S.45, appertaining to the administration of properties Duties of Executive Officer of a Temple, what are, under S.45Suit for recovery of property was instituted by Executive Officer on behalf of the temple Held, E.O. was not the competent person to institute the suit as he had not been assigned with the power of filing a suit"