(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with 114 of CPC to review the order made in W.P.(MD) No.11408 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026 on the file of this Court and allow this review application and pass such further or other appropriate orders.)

1. This Review Application is filed to review the order dated 21.04.2026 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 11408 of 2026.

2. The Review Petitioner is not a party to the Writ Petition. One R.Muthaiah, claiming to be a trustee of Arulmighu Senthatti Ayyanar Muthaiah Swamy Thirukoil Kula Theivega Valipaduvoor Arakattalai, filed the above Writ Petition. The prayer was for a Writ of Declaration declaring the continuance of the Special Officer / Executive Officer, pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.02.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and for handing over the administration to the petitioner / trust therein, and for directing the respondents to frame a scheme for the administration of the temple.

3. After considering the case of the parties, this Court found that, although the Executive Officer was appointed on 14.02.2015 and the appointment was upheld in W.P. (MD) No.19929 of 2015, the appointment would not entitle the respondents to continue the administration of the temple permanently through the Executive Officer alone. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to take steps for the appointment of trustees in accordance with Section 49 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner herein seeks to review the said order, pleading that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee in respect of the said temple. He has already filed an application before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. Therefore, pending the same, by virtue of the aforesaid direction, the administration of the temple should not be given to the new trustees.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would rely upon the Judgment in O.S. No. 27 of 1914 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, to contend that the petitioner is the lineal descendant of a Jamindhar and that the temple in question is included in Schedule 8 of the said suit, where relief was also sought and granted. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the fact that there are hereditary trustees was not brought to the notice of this Court while dealing with the Writ Petition. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 18752 of 2026, in which an interim order was granted on 06.07.2026, directing the authorities to first consider the petitioner's case and await further orders in respect thereof. Therefore, the order dated 21.04.2026 in W.P. (MD) No. 11408 of 2026 must be reviewed, and this Court should direct that the proceedings to identify and appoint trustees be kept in abeyance until the application filed by the petitioner claiming hereditary trusteeship is decided.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the temple would submit that the earlier suit itself is between private persons. Till date, the petitioner has never been recognised as a hereditary trustee. As a matter of fact, there have been rival claims among the several clans of the Sivagiri Jamin, and the petitioner cannot claim that he is the hereditary trustee.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent / Writ Petitioner would submit that there have been several litigations with reference to the very same temple. As far as the temple mentioned in the Schedule is concerned, the suit is from 1914, and it is a different temple, situated elsewhere, and the same is being confused with the present temple. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. (MD) No. 17611 of 2026, and this Court had already considered and refused relief to the petitioner. Therefore, the very same prayer is made by way of the present review.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

8. The direction given in the Writ Petition was to administer the temple by appointing the trustees, as per the relevant provisions of law. If it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the only hereditary trustee, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner to have himself declared as the hereditary trustee.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed such an application. Now, the petitioner wants an interim order pending consideration of the said application; that is the true nature of review and not on any grounds for review.

10. In this regard, it must be noted that the petitioner had already filed W.P.(MD) No. 17611 of 2026, praying for the handover of the administration of the very same temple to him. This Court declined the said relief and gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court or to challenge the proceedings initiated to appoint the nonhereditary trustees. The very fact that, to date, the petitioner has not been recognised even by any communication would show that the prayer made by the petitioner at this stage cannot be countenanced. However, several litigations that have come to the notice with reference to the very same temple are also taken into consideration. The mere fact that this Court directed the authorities by itself will not negate any claim made by the petitioner. Any application made by the petitioner under Section 63 of the Act to recognise him as the hereditary trustee will be considered on its own merits, and merely because this Court gave direction to appoint trustees, the same will not come in the way of the petitioner establishing his case. If ultimately the petitioner establishes that he his the hereditary trustee, the non-hereditary trustees appointed shall have to automatically give way to the petitioner.

11. As and when such an application is made, the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner shall issue notice to all persons interested and decide the issue in the manner known to law. The Judgment which is sought to be reviewed, made in the W.P. (MD) No.11408 of 2026, by itself will not disentitle the petitioner to the relief.

12. With the above clarification, finding no merits, this Review Application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.