No Locus: Madras High Court Rejects Plaint Of Man Whose AIADMK Membership Expired

The Madras High Court has rejected a Plaint filed by an AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) party member whose membership got expired.

The Court was deciding Revisions preferred against the Order of dismissal of Applications filed by the Revision Petitioners in respective suits, seeking rejection of the plaint.

A Single Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji held, “Though elaborate submissions were also made with regard to the merits of the prayers sought for in the plaint and decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court were cited with regard to the disputes pertaining to the functioning of the party, I do not deem it necessary to go into these issues, having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no locus to file the suit, as he is no longer a member of the AIADMK party, post 2018 when his membership expired, after a lapse of five years from 2013, i.e 06.08.2013.”

The Bench said that there is no embargo for the Court to take note of any material, including subsequent events to reject the plaint, especially when it is shown that the plaint does not survive for consideration.

Senior Advocate N. Vijay Narayan, Advocates K. Gowtham Kumar, and Narmatha Sampath appeared for the Petitioners while Advocates M. Velmurugan and Hari Perumal appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

A suit was filed by the Plaintiff claiming to be a member of AIADMK party from 2008. It was contended that as per the by-laws of the party, the membership is for a period of 5 years and it has to be renewed by making a fresh application. It was further contended that the Plaintiff opted to renew his membership in 2013 but the same was not renewed after 2018. As per the senior counsel, the Plaintiff is not a member of the AIADMK party and he contested in Edappadi constituency in the assembly elections under a different party, namely MGR Makkal Katchi, against Edappadi K. Palaniswamy who contested the said election as the AIADMK candidate, under two leaves symbol.

It was also argued that when the Plaintiff is not even a member of the party, he has no locus to file the suit, seeking the reliefs against the office bearers of the party. The Plaintiff had filed another suit wherein he sought for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants therein, from carrying out the internal party activities of AIADMK party in accordance with new party guidelines/by-laws, without due process of law. The said suit was dismissed and yet another suit filed by him to direct the Defendants to conduct election to the post of General Secretary was also dismissed, with the plaint being rejected. The other two suits were the subject matter of Revisions before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “… a proper and harmonious reading of the Rules, clearly indicates that the membership is valid only for a period of five years and the bylaws require a fresh application to be made for renewal at the end of the five year period, along with a payment of Rs.10/-. Admittedly, this has not been done by the plaintiff in the instant case and his subsequent conduct, after a lapse of three years, in contesting the 2021 elections as a candidate of MGR Makkal Katchi, as well, clearly goes to show that the plaintiff has no longer treated himself as member of AIADMK party.”

The Court noted that it is well within the purview and powers of the Civil Court to look into the material events and if there is clear indication that the Plaintiff has no cause of action or that the suit is frivolous, then it is open to the Court to reject the plaint at the nascent stage itself, as otherwise, it would result in an unnecessary and vexatious proceeding being forced upon the Defendants.

“… it is always open to the Court to put an end to infructuous litigation at any stage of proceedings and the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are not exhaustive. … if it is established that the suit as it stands, cannot be retained on file, the Court is entitled to reject the plaint”, it reiterated.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition, set aside the impugned Order, and rejected the Plaint.

Cause Title- Edappadi K.Palanisamy v. S.Suriyamoorthy & Ors. (Case Number: CRP.Nos.3835 & 3840 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Order