Court Can Take Note Of Subsequent Events To Reject Plaint: Madras High Court Rejects Plea Against AIADMK Leadership

Justice PB Balaji noted that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, there was no embargo on the courts taking note of subsequent events to reject a plaint. In the present case, the court noted that the plaintiff had contested against the AIADMK candidate in the assembly elections which showed that he no longer treated himself as a member of the AIADMK party.

'In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the Division Bench of this Court, 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,' the court said.

Suriyamoorthy, who claimed to be a member of the AIADMK party, had filed the suit seeking a decree that the General Council and the Executive Council do not have the authority, as per Rule 43 of the party bye-laws to amend the rules and to restrain the defendants from functioning in pursuance of the amendments. It may be noted that after the demise of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and AIADMK leader J. Jayalalithaa, the party's bye-laws were amended, and new posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were created.

Palanisamy argued that Suriyamoorthy ceased to be a member of the party since he had not renewed his membership after 2018, as required by the party's bylaws. Thus, it was claimed that when Suriyamoorthy was not even a member of the party, he had no locus to file the suit seeking relief against the office bearers of the party. He thus claimed that the trial court had erroneously dismissed the application for rejection of plaint.

On the other hand, Suriyamoorthy argued that non-payment of the nominal fee for renewal of membership would not amount to the membership ceasing by itself. Suriyamoorthy relied on Rule 35 of the bye-laws and argued that when a mechanism was available for in-house disciplinary proceedings, he could not be sent out of the party without taking action against him, and it could not be claimed that he had ceased to be a member of the party.

Perusing the bye-laws of the party, the court noted that membership was primarily for 5 years, which had to be renewed by payment of Rs. 10, along with a membership application. The court also noted that Suriyamoorthy had not renewed his membership after its expiry in 2018.

The court further noted that Suriyamoorthy had also contested elections against Edappadi as a candidate of the MGR Makkal Katchi party in the 2021 assembly elections. Though a claim was made that he had contested independently, the court noted that, as per the records available with the Election Commission of India, Suriyamoorthy had contested as a candidate backed by the party and not as an independent candidate.

'Therefore, 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 said.

Thus, the court concluded that Suriyamoorthy did not have locus to maintain the suit and thus allowed Edappadi's petition, rejecting the suit.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Vijay Narayan Senior Counsel, Mrs. Narmadha Sampath for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Velmurugan for Mr. Hari Perumal

Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

Case No: CRP.No.3835 of 2025