Judgment 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.S.R.No.19401 of 2012, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Heard Mr.K.B.Rajendran-the 5th revision petitioner herein/ party-in-person. All the five revision petitioners are present before this Court, who, in unison, through the fifth revision petitioner, would put forth and set forth their grievance as under: (i) The O.S.SR.No.19401 of 2012, contains the following prayer: a) set aside the judgement and decree passed in O.A.No.68 of 1976 order dated 24.5.1979 by the Deputy Commissioner, now the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai-600 034 under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act 22 of 1959. b) Direct that the order passed in O.A.No.68 of 1976 dated 24.5.1979 by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE, Chenai-34 is non-est and non-valid. c) declare that Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple, old No.12, Evening Bazar Road (Previously Guzilli Bazaar Road), Chennai-600 003 in R.S.No.10362 as a Public Temple. d) Consequently direct the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act to take over the said Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple under the Act and appoint new Dharmakartha to the temple in question." (extracted as such) (ii) The lower Court, even before numbering it rejected the plaint by setting out the following reasons: "The plaintiff had filed the above suit for setting aside the judgement and decree passed in O.A.No.68 of 1976 dated 24.5.1979 by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Board and for declaring the said order as non est in law and to declare the Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple at No.12, Bazaar Road, Chennai-3 as a Public Temple and to direct the DR & CE Authorities to take over the said Temple and appoint new Dharmakartha to the Temple. In O.A.No.68/76 the then Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai passed an order declaring that the said temple is not a public temple. As per Sec.69(1)of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959 any aggrieved person by any order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may within 60 days from the date of the publication of the order appeal to the Commissioner, HR & CE. As per Sec.69(1)of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959 any aggrieved person by any order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may within 60 days from the date of the publication of the order appeal to the Commissioner, HR & CE. Since the plaintiff failed to file an appeal within the stipulated period and had filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE and the same was also rejected by the Commissioner, HR & CE is in order dated 5.6.2008 in R.C.No.31068/2007. Against which the plaintiff had preferred CRP No.2742 of 2008 in which the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the above CRP and had observed that the petitioners may raise all the points in the eviction petition being O.P.No.1275/2006 and also in this suit being O.S.No.4446/2006 which shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned or by the appropriate authority. In the said order no observation was made by the Hon'ble High Court giving liberty to the plaintiff to file a separate suit challenging the order in O.A.No.68/1976. The order in O.A.No.68/1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE stands unchallenged. Even if the plaintiff has liberty to challenge the order in O.A.No.68 of 1976 can be raised only in the eviction petition in O.P.No.1275/2006 and in O.S.No.4446/2006 as per the order in CRP NO.2742/2008. A separate suit is not maintainable. Hence the plaint is rejected." 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order, this civil revision petition is focussed. 4. A mere poring over and perusal of the records would reveal that there is some dispute between the petitioners herein and the respondents. The first Bench of this Court in C.R.P.No.2742 of 2008 vide order dated 17.11.2011, observed thus: "3. After considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to differ with the order passed by the Commissioner. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that i the eviction petition being O.P.No.1275 of 2006 as also in the suit being O.S.No.4446 of 2006, the petitioners may raise all the points, which shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned or by the appropriate authority. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions are closed." 5. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that i the eviction petition being O.P.No.1275 of 2006 as also in the suit being O.S.No.4446 of 2006, the petitioners may raise all the points, which shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned or by the appropriate authority. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions are closed." 5. Thereafter, it appears, the suit O.S.No.4446 of 2006 was withdrawn by the petitioners herein with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Wherefore, the petitioners herein presented the O.S.SR.No.19401 of 2012. As such, the III Assistant Judge, was not justified in summarily rejecting the plaint. He ought to have numbered the suit, if it was otherwise in order and issued summons. If any preliminary objection is there, then that should be decided on hearing both sides. 6. The lower Court went to the extent of deciding the maintainability, even before numbering the suit and that too, without considering the fact that the said suit O.S.No.4446 of 2006 was withdrawn by the petitioners, as per the order in I.A.No.5097 of 2007, with liberty to file fresh suit. As such, the lower Court shall number the O.S.SR.No.19401 of 2012 as a suit and process it as per law, as mandated supra. 13. In the result, the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The original plaint shall be returned to the petitioners for being represented within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.