N RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. M SUBBIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner/defendant whose petition under:

(2.) According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the sole defendant is the revision petitioner who preferred an interlocutory applictation in I.A.No.434 of 2013 in O.S.No.108 of 2013 seeking the relief of rejection of plaint as the plaintiff is suffered and barred by the principle of Resjudicata. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that earlier the petitioner/defendant in a representative capacity as President of Srikannapiran Pasanai Madam Temple Kakkivadanpatti Hindu Kammavar Veduga Sathi Uravinmurai along with the Secretary of the said Uravinmurai filed an Original Suit. The said suit was numbered as O.S.No.171 of 2008 for the relief of permanent Injunction. In the said suit a counter claim was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs to declare the said temple as public temple belongs to the people of Kakkivadanpatti village along with the relief of permanent Injunction that the public of Kakkivadanpatti village shall not be prevented by the petitioner/defendant and his men either for worship or for enter into the said temple. Considering the plaint and written statement along with counter claim, the learned trial court framed six issues and also framed another additional issues.

(3.) However, the additional issues framed by the said court on 27.07.2011 was taken as issues No.1 in respect of jurisdiction of the civil court in the light of section 108 of H.R. & C.E Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner that in the said suit, the additional issues alone was discussed and answered. Accordingly, it was held in the said suit that the jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit and the counter claim is barred in view of section 108 of H.R. & C.E Act. So, the present suit in O.S.No.108 of 2013 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is hit by the principle of Res-Judicata and thereby the petition in I.A.No.434 of 2013 in O.S.No.108 of 2013 was filed for the rejection of the plaint.