Madras High Court

Madras HC: Temple Application Miscommunication Leads to Reconsideration

Updated
Nov 24, 2025 8:41 PM
madras-hc-temple-application-miscommunication-leads-to-reconsideration

Here's the scoop on a recent court decision involving a temple case in Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu. Let's break it down!

The Main Issue: Application Not Processed

On November 19, 2025, the Madras High Court looked into a case where S. Krishnaveni, the person bringing the case, challenged an order from September 24, 2025. The problem? Her application about the Arulmighu Periya Sellandiyamman Temple in Chickanapuram Village wasn't being processed. She wanted the court to make sure it was properly filed and considered.

Background: Temple Application Drama

S. Krishnaveni filed her application on January 21, 2025, under a specific rule related to managing Hindu temples and charities in Tamil Nadu. But the application kept getting sent back. This led her to approach the court earlier in a related case, where she was told to fix any issues and submit it again.

Court's Previous Order: Fix and Resubmit

On October 16, 2025, the court told S. Krishnaveni to correct the application and resubmit it. The person responsible in Tiruppur was then supposed to file and review it within 12 weeks. But things didn't go as planned.

"The respondent did not bring to the notice of this Court that an order had already been passed on 24.09.2025."

The Mix-Up: Miscommunication in Court

Turns out, an order was already passed on September 24, 2025, but nobody told the court during the October hearing. This mix-up meant the application was returned again on October 17, 2025, without proper consideration.

The Final Decision: Try Again

Judge P.B. Balaji decided that S. Krishnaveni should resubmit her application within two weeks. The person responsible must then process it properly within three months.

"On receipt of such application, the respondent shall number the application and proceed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter."

What’s Next?

Now, S. Krishnaveni has a clear path to get her application reviewed. The court's decision ensures her case will be considered fairly this time around.

Tags:
Property Rights
Registration Act
Co-operative Societies