@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Thangamani, J.@mdashRevision petitioners are defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 106 of 1993 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge,
Kancheepuram. The respondent/plaintiff is a devotee and honourary service holder of Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram whose
Executive Trustee is the 6th defendant in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that during Brahmotsavam days, there is a custom long usage
prevailing in the temple in connection with the performance of honour to idols of Alwars and Acharyas consecrated inside the temple. In the year
1988 one Seshadhri third defendant in the suit applied to the sixth defendant to have a Mandagapadi in the place called Sri Ahobila Mutt, wherein
the idols of certain Acharyas belonging to Vadakalai sect, are consecrated. This was objected to by the member belonging to the Thenkalai sect,
of Vaishanavites and so the third defendant filed an application before the-second defendant the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. seeking
permission to perform the Mandagapadi honours. That application was allowed by the second defendant in his order dated 10.10.1990.
Thereafter the first defendant the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. initiated suo moto revision in respect of the said order in S.M.R. No. 8 of 1991.
The plaintiff filed his objections before the Commissioner, However, the Commissioner passed order on 6.6.1990 in his proceedings No. 67 of
1990 that the sixth defendant viz. the Executive Officer should honour the idols in Sri Ahobila MuttatSannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram. It is
not clear from the copy of the plaint provided in the typed set what is the exact order passed on 9.8.1991. However, on a reading of the entire
plaint we are able to gather that the suit has been laid u/s 70 of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 to set aside the orders passed by the first defendant on
9.8.1991 in S.M.R. No. 8 of 1991. In the plaint the date 9.8.1991 is mentioned only in the cause of action paragraph which indicates that on
9.8.1991 the first defendant has passed some orders.
2. It appears that during the pendency of the suit plaintiff filed I.A. No. 690 of 1993 against defendants 1 and 6 alone seeking interim injunction
against the sixth defendant from conferring honours to Sri Manavala Mamuni on the 3rd of Brahmotsavam festival of Sri Varadaraja Swamy
Temple beginning from 1.6.1993. There was also an endeavour on the part of the plaintiff to get interim orders. In the meanwhile, defendants 4 and
5 came forward with I.A. No. 689 of 1993 making the plaintiff as the respondent under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151, C.P.C., to get
themselves impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in I.A. No. 690 of 1993. The revision petitioners state in their affidavit in I.A. No. 689 of 1993 that
they are the disciples and devotees of Sri Manavala Mamuni and any injunction against the sixth defendant regarding the temple honour on the third
day of Brahmotsavam festival as prayed for will directly affect them and hurt their sentiments and feelings in this respect. So they have to be
impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in I.A. No. 690 of 1993. That they have been impleaded as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit is significant.
3. That application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that this is a suit against the order of the first defendant u/s 70 of the H.R. & C.E.
Act. Defendants 4 and 5 are not necessary parties even in the suit, as the order of the Commissioner alone has got to be set aside there. They
were impleaded only as formal parties since the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff and on the basis of
representation of defendants 4 and 5 on the honours to be given to Sri Manavala Mamunigal against established custom and usage. When the suit
was originally filed in the city civil court, Madras, the injunction granted was only against defendants 1 and 2.
4. On enquiry learned Subordinate Judge has found that controversy in the suit relates to the plaintiff and H.R. & C.E. Board and there is no
reason to implead defendants 4 and 5 as respondents in I.A. No. 690 of 1993 and accordingly he dismissed that application without costs.
Defendants 4 and 5 challenge this order in this revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submits that since I.A. No. 690 of 1993 relates to the conferring of Sri Satari Honour to the idol of
Sri Manavala Mamuni and they are his devotees interested in the honour, they are necessary parties to the application. In fact, they are impleaded
as party defendants in the suit only for this reason. The plaint also reads that the sub-sects, of Acharyas of defendants 4 and 5 are located in the
precincts in between the deities of senior-most Alwar namely Nammalwar and other Alwars and the first Acharya, Sri Ramanuja, conferring
honours on junior Acharya before honouring the Alwars and other senior Acharya is against the time honoured usage and custom prevailing in the
temple. The plaintiff has stated in his affidavit in I.A. No. 690 of 1993 that he is filing that application for interim injunction restraining the Executive
Officer of the temple from in any way avoiding Mariyathas to Ahobila Mutt and thereby from in any way honouring Sri Manavala Mamuni in the
temple on the third day Brahmotsavam during Vaikasi every year as per orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Madras by in any way enforcing
the order of the first respondent in S.M.R. No. 8 of 1991. We also find from the petition in I.A. No. 699 of 1993 before the Vacation Judge at
Chengalpattu (vide page 17 of the second typed set) that the plaintiff has expressly stated that the purpose of the injunction is to prevent the
Executive Officer from in any way honouring Sri Manavala Mamuni in the temple on the third day Brahmotsavam during Vaikasi of every year.
And admittedly while the plaintiff belongs to Vadakalai sect, of Vaishnavite religion, to revision petitioners are of Thenkalai sect. The litigation
between the two sects, is age old and it is an unending story. While so, there could be no doubt that the presence of the revision petitioners is
necessary in I.A. No. 690 of 1993 also for the purpose of effective adjudication of the controversy. In fact, learned Counsel for the respondent is
unable to explain satisfactorily as to how having impleaded them as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit they are not necessary parties in the injunction
application. Under Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C., the court may at any stage of the proceedings, order that the name of any person who ought to
have been joined an defendant or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit, be added.
6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of learned Subordinate Judge in I.A. No. 689 of 1993 is set aside and that petition is
allowed. No costs.
