Order THE IV ASSISTANT CITY CIVIL COURT AT CHENNAI Present: Thiru.K.Sivasakthivel Kannan., B.A., M.L., IV Assistant Judge Thursday, the 31st day of July, 2025 I.A.No. 06/2023 in O.S.No. 3541 of 2022 (CNR.No.TNCH01-012387-2022) 1. Edappadi K. Palanisamy Joint Coordinator All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

IN THE IV ASSISTANT CITY CIVIL COURT AT CHENNAI
Present: Thiru.K.Sivasakthivel Kannan., B.A., M.L.,
IV Assistant Judge
Thursday, the 31st day of July, 2025
I.A.No. 06/2023 in O.S.No. 3541 of 2022
(CNR.No.TNCH01-012387-2022)
1. Edappadi K. Palanisamy
Joint Coordinator
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. …Petitioner/3rd Defendant
-Vs- 1. S.Suriyamoorthy
S/o. K.P. Shanmugam
Avilipatti (P.O)
Sanarpatti (Via)
Dindugul District, Tamil Nadu …Respondent/Plaintiff
2. The Authorized Signatory/Interim General Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
3. O. Pannerselvam
Coordinator
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
4. Dr.A.Tamilmagan Hussain
Presidium Chairman
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
5. C.Ponnaiyar Party organizing Secretary/Election Commissioner
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
6. Thiru Munaivar Pollachi Jayaraman
Election Commissioner
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
7. Thiru. K.P.Munusamy
Deputy Coordinator
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
8. Thiru R.Vaithilingam
Deputy Coordinator
Party Organizing Secretary
Thanjavur South District Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
9. Thiru Dindigul C.Srinivasan
Party Organising Secretary
Dindigul District Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
10. Thiru Sengottayan
Erode District Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
11. Thiru Dhanapal
Former Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having headquarters at
226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014 …Respondents/Defendants
This application is came up before me for final hearing on
14.07.2025 in the presence of M/s. E. Balamurugan, P. Manoj Kumar and N.S.Amogh Simha Counsel for the petitioner/3rd defendant and M/s.
S.Suryamoorthy Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff and M/s. E.Balamurugan, P. Manoj Kumar and N.S.Amogh Simha counsel for the 2nd to 11th respondent/ defendants and upon perusal of case records, after hearing the arguments on Both side, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivers the following;
ORDER
The petitioner/3rd defendant filed this application under order 7 rule
11 of CPC to reject the plaint.
2. Crux of the affidavit filed in support of the petition:
The petitioner/3rd defendant stated that the plaint is devoid of any
cause of action and bared by Section 10 of CPC. 1st respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and the 1st respondent has filed multiple proceedings and has clearly abused the process of law. The 1st respondent is an outsider to the AIADMK party, but has also contested the Assembly Elections in 2021 as a member of MGR Makkal Katchi and he has no locus standi to file the suit. The membership of AIADMK is governed by its rules and regulation and the persons who are not members of AIADMK cannot question the functioning of the party. Rule 5 of the AIADMK party rules states rule of membership. The suit is filed O.S.No.3541/2022 is a classic example of a vexatious litigation in as much as he said suit is the third suit filed on the issue of internal administration of the AIADMK during the pendency of earlier suits such as O.S.NO.3694 of 2021 and O.S.No.8122 of 2021 on the file of XXIII Assistant City Civil Court Chennai and such directly hit by section 10 of CPC. The issue in the present suit in O.S.No.3541/2022 is also directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suits O.S.No.3694/2021 and O.S.No.8122/2021 on the file of XIII
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and prayed to reject the plaint.
3. Crux of the Counter filed by the 1 st Respondent/plaintiff as follows:
The respondents/defendants stated that the AIADMK is a recognized
political party and the 1st respondent/plaintiff is being the member from 2008 as per the Rule 15 of the by law general Secretary is fully authorized to relax and make alteration to any of the above said rules and regulation of the party as per the Rule 20 the general secretary of the party will be responsible for the entire administration of the party and the General secretary of the party should be elected by the primary members of all the party units of Tamil Nadu and the members of the party in other states of pondichery, Andhara prades, Karnadaka, kerala and Andaman Iseland, the general secretary can nominate from among the primary members of the party one or more deputy general secretary and president and to administer headquarters secretary as needed for administrative convinience. The general Secretary can convene the executive commitee of the party. General council consist of the general secretary, deputy general secretary Chairman, President headquarters, secretary and nominated members those are will hold the office at pleasure of the general secretary. If any reason the post of general secretary becomes vacant the officers nominated by the general secretary will hold office and continued till the new general secretary is elected and assumes office as per Rule 43. The general council will have power to frame amend or delete any of the rules of the party constitution but the rule to elect the general secretary should not be modified. General secretary will be elected only by the primary members of the party. That rule can not be changed.
It is the basis structure of the party. So the election of Coordinator and joint
Coordinator is against the Rule 43. The petitioner has not joined any other party.
He alliance with MGR Makkal katchi and only contested as candidate of the
MGR Makkal Party in general election and he is not a member of MGR Makkal Katchi. Even the AIADMK party joined alliance with other parties and contested in election and some of the party member contested in the sympel of other party will not loose the membership of original party. It is only election alliance purpose they contested. Since the general secretary is not elected as per the rule 43 r/w 20, no one has right to issue identity card of membership and add new membership. The membership card issued to the petitioner is stands good till now. The petitioner Pazhanichamy is not elected by the primary party members. So as per rule 43 r/w 20 of by law he can not claim as general secretary. The general secretary should be elected by the primary members of the party and that rule never be amended even though the rule is amended it is invalid one and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Points for consideration in this application:
Whether the plaint can be rejected and the application can be
allowed?
The petitioner/3rd defendant filed this applications on the ground that
as per Sec 10 of CPC the suit is not maintainable. The petitioner/ 3rd defendant stated that already O.S.No.3694/2021 and O.S.No.8122/2021 on the file of
XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai were filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the issue in the present suit and in previously instituted suits are one and the same. Hence the suit is bared under Sec 10 of CPC. To decide the that point the plaint copy of the earlier suit OS No.3694/2021 and O.S.No.8122/2021 on the file of XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai are not filed in this application, hence whether the issue in this suit and previously instituted suit are substantially one and same or not could not be decided. Even though it is admitted that the issue in this suit and issue in previously instituted suit are substantially one and the same, as per Section 10 of CPC the subsequent suit can be stayed. But on the ground the plaint could not be rejected. Further the petitioner/3rd defendant stated that the petitioner is not a AIADMK Party member and he is contested in the assembly election as a candidate of MGR
Makkal Katchi on joining with that party and contested in the symbol of MGR Makkal Katchi. Since he is not a member, he has no locus standi to file the suit and no cause of action to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. In contra the 1st respondent/plaintiff stated that he is a member from 2008. After the death of the
General secretary Mrs. Jayalalitha, as per the by law of the party Rule 43 r/w
20 new general secretary was not elected by the primary members of the party. That rule cannot be amended. Hence the coordinator and joint coordinator has no authority to issue identity card or allowing members in the party. Further the selection of coordinator and joint coordinator and the general secretary is not in accordance with rule 43 r/w 20 of the AIADMK party by law. Hence he is a members till now. He is contested only in alliance with MGR Makkal Katchy in election and he is not joined as a party members of MGR Makkal Katchi. Hence he has locus stadi to file the suit, since he is a member.
In rejection of plaint application whether there is a cause of action
are not will be decided only on the basis of plaint allegation. The application could not be decided on the basis of written statement or any other document filed by the parties. On perusal of the plaint the plaintiff stated that he is a member of the ADMK party. As per Rule 43 r/w 20 the general secretary should be elected by the primary members of the party. In contra to the rule coordinator and joint coordinator was elected. Hence 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit to declare that the election of coordinator and joint coordinator is against the by law of the party and to restrain the defendant to enact any resolution till the general secretary was elected by the primary members as per Rule 43 r/w 20 (2) of party by law amended by 2007. Hence on perusal of the plaint allegation there is a cause of action. As per Rule 43 and Rule 20 the general secretary should be elected by the primary members of the parties. The petitioner/3rd defendant has not stated that he was elected as per Rule 43 r/w 20 (2) of the party by law. Hence there is a triable issue in the suit. Further, merely because the respondent/plaintiff had contested in the election alliance with the other party it could not be decided that he is not at member of the ADMK party and the 1st respondent/plaintiff stated that the petitioner/3rd defendant has not elected in accordance with rule 43 r/w 20 (2) of party by law and he has no right to issue identity card and add members. Hence in rejection of plaint application it could not be decided whether 1st respondent is a party member and whether petitioner/3rd defendant has right to add members in the party and it will be decided only after adducing evidence and documents. On perusal of the plaint there is a cause of action and triable issue in the suit. Hence the plaint could not be rejected as prayed by the petitioner/3rd defendant. As per the dictum of
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in 2014 (1)TNCJ page 360 Madras M.Prince Manohar and others……. petitioners Vs Bheema Lakshmi Nalasimma and
others it is held that the dispute is related to fact and law, it could not be decided in order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In V.Bragan Nayagi Vs R.R. Jayaprakasam and another reported in CDJ 2015 MHC Page No.3946 it is held that without enquiry the suit will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and cause of action. From the above facts this court come to the conclusion that the plaint could not be rejected as per order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and application ought to be dismissed.
In the result, the application is dismissed and no cost.
Dictated by me to Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by
him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 31st day of July, 2025.

IV Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai
Both side Witness and Document : Nil
IV Assistant Judge
City Civil Court, Chennai.

Draft/Fair Order
I.A.No.06 of 2023 in
O.S.No.3541/2022
Dated: 31.07.2025
IV Assistant Court.