(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and Decretal order dated 26.03.2026 made in IA.No.11/2026 in OS.No. 664/2026 on the file of the XIII City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi, rep. By its Founder and present President Dr.S.Ramadoss, has filed this Civil Revision Petition, as against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.03.2026 made in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.664 of 2026 on the file of learned XIII City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The learned Trial Judge, by order dated 26.03.2026, passed the impugned order in I.A.No.11 of 2026 and I.A.No.12 of 2026 in O.S.No.664 of 2026, held that plaintiff has failed to satisfy the prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and irreparable injury would be caused to him if the reliefs sought are declined at this stage, while arriving at such a decision, this court also take note of the fact that the plaintiff, in these petitions, seek for freezing of the ‘Symbol’ and staying of the allotment of the ‘Symbol’ to the plaintiff’s party himself; on the contrary, any interference at this juncture would have the effect of disrupting the ongoing election process, which this Court is not inclined to do. Further, the learned Trial Judge observed that “if permissible in law, it is open to the plaintiff to approach the Election Commission of India by way of an appropriate representation. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of such representation, and it is for the said authority to consider the same, so made, strictly in accordance with law.”

3. The learned Trial Judge further observed in result portion as under:-

                     “ (c) It is open to the plaintiff to approach the Election Commission of India to seek for revocation of Concession, If it is legally permissible, since it is the exclusive domain of the Election Commission of India.”

4. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order is as under:-

                     (i) The learned Civil Court failed to appreciate that the limited relief sought by the petitioner was only to prevent voter confusion and to ensure a level playing field during the electoral process, and did not entail adjudication of inter se rights of the rival factions of the political party.

                     (ii) The learned Civil Court has gravely erred in law in treating the present dispute as one confined to inter se rights of rival factions within a political party, without appreciating that the issue raised transcends a purely private dispute and squarely falls within the domain of public law. The dispute, in substance, relates to the use and operation of an election symbol during an ongoing electoral process, which is an integral component of the statutory election machinery regulated by the Election Commission of India under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, read with Article 324 of the Constitution of India.

                     (iii) The learned Civil Court failed to appreciate that election symbols are not merely internal party insignia, but constitute a critical instrument of electoral identification for voters, particularly in a system where a significant portion of the electorate relies upon symbols to identify candidates and political parties. The use of a common symbol by rival factions during the pendency of a leadership dispute has a direct and substantial bearing on voter perception, electoral choice, and the overall fairness of the electoral process. The impugned order, by erroneously characterising the dispute as a private intra-party disagreement, has overlooked the wider constitutional and statutory ramifications of the issue, including the potential for voter confusion, misrepresentation and distortion of electoral outcomes.

                     (iv) The learned Civil Court has failed to appreciate that under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, the Election Commission of India is vested with wide-ranging powers of direction, and control over the conduct of elections, which have been consistently interpreted by this Court to include all ancillary and incidental powers necessary to ensure the purity, fairness, and integrity of the electoral process. Such powers necessarily extend to the regulation of election symbols, which form an integral part of the electoral framework, and to taking appropriate measures to prevent voter confusion arising from competing claims over the same symbol.

                     (v) The learned Civil Court failed to consider that election symbols are not merely matters of internal party administration but are embedded within the statutory scheme governing elections, including the Election symbols (Reservation and Allotment) order, 1968, and are essential for enabling voters, particularly in a diverse electorate, to identify candidates and political affiliations. Any ambiguity or duplication in the use of symbols, especially during an active electoral cycle, has the potential to materially distort voter choice and undermine the principle of informed participation in a democratic process. In the present case, despite the existence of rival factions and the pendency of a civil dispute regarding leadership, the refusal to grant interim protection by way of freezing of the symbol has the direct consequence of permitting both factions to simultaneously use or claim entitlement to the same symbol, thereby creating a high likelihood of confusion, misrepresentation and electoral prejudice.

                     (vi) The learned Civil Court, by declining such interim relief, has failed to recognise that the limited measure sought by the petitioner was aimed at preserving neutrality and ensuring a level playing field, rather than determining substantive rights. The impugned order, therefore, effectively defeats the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution, by allowing a situation to persist where the electoral process may be compromised due to avoidable ambiguity in symbol usage.

                     (vii) The learned Civil Court has erred in proceeding on the fundamentally erroneous assumption that grant of interim relief, namely freezing of the election symbol “Mango”, would amount to adjudication of rival claims to party leadership, whereas the relief sought by the petitioner was purely regulatory, temporary, and protective in nature, intended to operate only during the pendency of the civil proceedings.

                     viii) The relief sought by the petitioner did not require the court to determine which faction is the rightful representative of the political party, nor did it seek recognition of any faction by the Election Commission of India, instead, the limited prayer was to temporarily freeze the use of the common symbol so as to maintain neutrality and avoid conferring any undue electoral advantage upon either faction.

                     (ix) The learned Civil Court failed to consider that freezing of a symbol is a well-recognized interim measure within the electoral framework, designed precisely to address situations where competing claims exist and adjudication is pending. The refusal to grant such relief, on an incorrect legal premise, has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner and has the potential to distort the electoral process by allowing one faction to derive unwarranted advantage from continued use of the disputed symbol.

                     (x) The learned Civil Court failed to appreciate that the applications filed by the petitioner did not seek determination of rights or recognition of any faction but were limited to seeking an interim measure to prevent misuse of a common symbol and to ensure neutrality in the electoral process. The impugned order proceeds on an incorrect application of the principle of non interference in the electoral process, as freezing of a symbol does not interrupt or stall elections but rather facilitates a level playing field and preserves the fairness of the electoral process by avoiding voter confusion.

                     (xi) The learned Civil Court failed to correctly assess the balance of convenience, which overwhelmingly lies in favour of maintaining electoral neutrality by freezing the use of the disputed symbol. Permitting rival factions to simultaneously use or claim entitlement to the same election symbol creates a substantial risk of voter confusion and confers an undue and irreversible electoral advantage upon one faction over the other. In contrast, freezing the symbol is a neutral and non-prejudicial measure, which does not determine rights but merely preserves the status quo and ensures a level playing field during the pendency of the dispute.

5. The plaintiff who filed this civil revision petition submits that the petitioner’s political party is a registered political party. However, as on date, it is an unrecognised political party and the Election Commission of India do not have the propriety or powers to decide on the rival claim made over the position of President and Office bearers of the party.

6. It is submitted that the President of the party is Dr.S.Ramadoss and he is also the founder of the party. Dr.R.Anbumani was President of Pattali Makkal Katchi for a tenure of three years starting from 28.05.2022 to 28.05.2025. It was brought to the notice of the founder/President that the said Anbumani had committed fraud on Election Commission by creating documents without any authority by any forum and forged documents and the communication dated 04.12.202 is to the effect that the tenure of office bearers headed by Anbumani was recorded as if it was from June 2023 to June 2026. It is submitted that there was no general body meeting on 31st August 2023 as referred. It is a forged, created, unauthorized document that is to be taken note for taking appropriate action. There was a meeting unauthorized by the founder was conducted indoors. The tenure was extended for a period of 40 days for which there is no provision in the constitution of the party and no bye-laws permits to extend the tenure for a period of 40 days. It is only for 3 years and the general body meeting will have to be convened for another 3 years as done for the past so many years. So this attempt of seeking extension of time till 1st August 2026 which was done by communications dated 09.09.2025 on the basis of the request made by former president Dr.R.Anbumani on 10.08.2025 and 11.08.2025 as if there was a legally conducted meeting on 09.08.2025.

7. It is also submitted that the documents of 09.09.2025 were challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P.18311 of 2025 on 04.12.2025. The other communication dated 27.11.2025 was also challenged and sought to be quashed. The claim made by Dr.S.Ramadoss as he is the President from 30.05.2025 is brought to the notice of Election Commission of India. On 17.12.2025, the Chief Administrative Committee also ratified the resolution of appointing Dr.S.Ramadoss and his team office bearers on 29.12.2025 by the competent executive body and general body and the same was duly communicated on 17.12.2025 and 29.12.2025 to the Election Commission of India by informing the change of names of office bearers headed by Dr.S.Ramadoss and also the office address No.63, Natumuthy Naickab Street, Vanniyar Teynampet, Chennai. This was communicated to the Election Commission of India. The Election Commission of India did not choose to reply for the same for the past one month. However, the request was made on 29.12.2025 in the communication which is also submitted along with the petition requesting the Election Commission of India to allot “Mango” symbol to the new office bearers to the new address referred in the application. The election symbol “Mango” was allotted to the party Pattali Makkal Katchi for the ensuing elections of 2026 for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. This communication dated 30.07.2025 was issued to the party to the incorrect address.

8. The gist of the submission of the petitioner/plaintiff is that Pattali Makkal Katchi had duly elected its President Dr.S.Ramadoss by the competent body. He is holding the charge of President of the party from 30.05.2025 till date. However, in the interregnum period on 30.07.2025, a communication was sent to the party by the party name for allotting “Mango” symbol for contesting the elections of Bihar 2025, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry 2026. According to the petitioner, the communication was sent to the incorrect address.

9. The contention of the petitioners is that as there is a dispute with regard to President of Pattali Makal Katchi by son and father of two factions, the Election commission of India will have to freeze the Mango symbol for the 2026 elections. In the civil suit, the relief was sought to freeze the symbol Mango. In this connection, the Supreme Court by SLP(Civil) No.9877 of 2026, direted the civil court Chennai, to decide the question of freezing of symbol Mango within three days. As such I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2026 in O.S.No.664 of 2026 was filed and city court dismissed the prayer of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 26.03.2026. According to the petitioner, the impugned order passed is against the directions of the Supreme Court of India as instead of deciding the issue, a perverse order was passed.

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the limited relief sought by the petitioner was only to prevent voter confusion. However, the court below committed an error of law by erroneously treating the present dispute as one confined to the inter-se rights of rival factions within a political party, without appreciating that the issue is, in fact, a private dispute relating to the use and operation of an election symbol during an ongoing electoral process, which forms an integral component of the statutory election machinery regulated by the Election Commission of India.

11. The learned counsel further pointed out that the election symbol is not merely an internal party insignia, but constitutes a critical instrument of electoral identification for voters. The use of a common symbol by rival factions during the pendency of a leadership dispute has a direct and substantial bearing on voter perception and electoral choice. However, the impugned order has illegally characterized the dispute as a private inter-party disagreement and failed to take note of the likelihood of voter confusion in the forthcoming election.

12. Further, he argued that any ambiguity or duplication in the use of symbols would create a high likelihood of confusion, misappropriation, and electoral prejudice. Despite the existence of rival factions and the pendency of a Civil suit regarding leadership, the refusal to grant interim protection by way of freezing the symbol would have the direct consequence of permitting both factions to simultaneously use or claim entitlement to the same symbol, thereby leading to ambiguity in its usage. Therefore, the impugned order effectively defeats the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections.

13. The learned counsel also submitted that the court below erroneously assumed that granting interim relief, namely freezing of the election symbol "Mango", would amount to adjudicating the rival claims to party leadership. However, the relief sought by the petitioner did not require the court to determine which faction is the rightful representative of the political party. On the contrary, the prayer was limited to temporarily freezing the common symbol so as to maintain neutrality and avoid conferring any undue electoral advantage upon either faction.

14. At this stage, the learned counsel further pointed out that before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in W.P. No. 18311 of 2025, it was observed that the Election Commission of India, as on date, does not recognize either Dr. R. Anbumani or Dr. S. Ramadoss as the President of the petitioner party, and that the said issue would be the subject matter of a civil suit to be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. He also observed that, in respect of unrecognized political parties, in the event of internal disputes between rival factions, the Election Commission of India shall not adjudicate such disputes, as laid down by the Division Bench in Chandra Prakash Kaushik vs. Election Commission of India & Another, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1617.

15. Therefore, it is the civil court alone that has the competent jurisdiction to decide the issue with regard to the usage of the symbol. Thus, the petitioner rightly approached the court seeking relief to freeze the symbol in order to avoid confusion in the forthcoming elections. However, the court below failed to properly appreciate both the law and the facts and erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

16. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that, after receiving the order, the present President of the PMK sent various communications to the Chief Election Commission of India. In particular, requests were made to allot a similar symbol to the political party by way of occurrence through letters dated 17.12.2025 and 29.12.2025, along with several subsequent communications. Though all such communications were received, no reply was furnished. Therefore, in those circumstances, finding no other alternative remedy, the petitioner approached the civil forum for redressal. He also submitted that this Court as well as the Apex Court had already directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief. However, the trial court failed to grant such relief and erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

17. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent (R5), who was subsequently impleaded in the suit as the General Secretary, submitted that, as on date, in respect of Puducherry, candidates referred by Dr.S.Ramadoss have contested the election as independent candidates. Similarly, in Tamil Nadu, candidates were fielded under the banner of Anaithu Indhiya Jananayaga Padhukaappu Kazhagam, and nominations were filed only as independent candidates. Those nominations have also been accepted, and such candidates are being treated as candidates fielded by the PMK party.

18. Further, he submitted that, under the valid and existing party byelaws, the founder has no administrative authority to represent the party in legal proceedings, and the operational authority of the party vests only with the duly elected office-bearers. As on date, this respondent is the duly elected State General Secretary of PMK under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

19. The learned counsel also pointed out that the first respondent has notified the Assembly elections in the States of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, and the election notification was issued on 15.03.2026. As on date, the election process has commenced. In view of the said notification issued by the Election Commission of India, no orders can be passed in a manner that interferes with the ongoing election process. This position has already been observed by this Court in CRP No. 1530 of 2026 and is a settled proposition of law emanating from various decisions of the Apex Court.

20. Further, he submitted that the fourth respondent, Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, was elected as a Member of the Rajya Sabha as a candidate of PMK, as per the records available with the Election Commission of India, and no steps have been taken to challenge the same, thereby rendering the election final. He further submitted that, in Tamil Nadu, the nominations submitted by 18 candidates have been accepted, and they have been recognized as candidates fielded by the PMK party, with the election symbol “Mango” having been allotted to them. He also pointed out that the fourth respondent was elected as President and this respondent was re-elected as General Secretary at the State General Council meeting held in 2022. The changes in office-bearers were duly communicated to the Election Commission of India under Section 29A(9) of the Representation of the People Act, and the same stands recorded by the Commission.

21. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought by the petitioner are not maintainable either in law or on facts. Therefore, the findings of the trial court require no interference, and the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the revision as being devoid of merits.

22. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent (R4) argued that, at the outset, the interim application filed before the trial court is not maintainable, as it was not filed in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India. He further contended that the application has not been filed under the appropriate provision of law. In support of her submission, she relied upon the cause title of the interim application.

23. On a perusal of I.A. No. 11 of 2026, it is evident that the application has not been filed in accordance with the proper legal provisions, and the relief sought therein is also not sustainable in law. A bare reading of the records shows that the cause title of the said interim application describes it as follows:

                     “Petitioner filed as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, order dated 23.03.2026, for deciding the question of freezing of the symbol due to rival claims by both the parties. On perusal of the prayer, it seeks to stay the symbol allotment to the petitioner’s party issued by the first respondent on 30.07.2025, in order to avoid confusion among voters in the General Assembly Elections of 2026 in the States of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, pending enquiry and disposal of the application.”

24. The learned counsel further submitted that, as per the communication issued by the Election Commission of India dated 04.12.2023, the fourth respondent is recognized as the President and the fifth respondent (R5) as the General Secretary of the party, with their term extended from 22.06.2023 to 21.06.2026. Therefore, as on date, the fourth respondent continues to be the President of the said political party. The petitioner has no locus standi either to challenge his position or to seek the reliefs claimed in the main suit, which are not maintainable in law.

25. She further contended that, in view of the party bye-laws and the communication issued by the Election Commission of India, the post of President held by the fourth respondent stands affirmed. Hence, he alone is entitled to represent the party. Moreover, once the election process has commenced pursuant to the notification, the petitioner has no right to seek any relief against the first respondent, namely, the Election Commission of India. The civil court has no jurisdiction to pass any interim order against the Election Commission of India, which is a constitutional authority, nor can it quash any order passed by it. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court requires no interference, and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

26. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, namely the Election Commission of India, submitted that the Commission has no power to adjudicate disputes between rival factions of an unrecognized political party. The present dispute falls within that category. Though various communications were received from the petitioner, the Commission is only required to maintain such communications on record and is not bound to issue any reply or affirmation to the same. He further submitted that the allotment of election symbols forms part of the electoral process governed by the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1965. As on date, the election notification has been issued, nominations have been completed, and the election process has commenced. Symbols have already been allotted to candidates. In the event of rival claims between factions, the parties ought to approach the competent civil court to determine which faction is entitled to use the symbol and represent the party. Instead, the petitioner has sought to freeze the symbol by seeking relief against the Election Commission of India, which is not maintainable in law. The petitioner is also not entitled to freeze symbol, by relying Section 10A of Act.

27. In view of the above, it was contended that the application filed before the civil court seeking to freeze the symbol is not maintainable in law, and the relief sought is unsustainable. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application, and the same does not warrant any interference. Further, the learned counsel also relied upon Articles 324 and 329 of the Constitution of India, which bar judicial interference in electoral matters except by way of an election petition.

28. Summing up the submissions of both sides, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the election symbol of PMK, namely “Mango,” is liable to be frozen. According to the petitioner, he is the newly elected President and assumed charge on 30.05.2025. He also claims to have informed the Election Commission of India (R1) regarding the change in the post of President. On the other hand, the fourth respondent (R4) asserts that he continues to be the President of the said political party, with his term extended from 22.06.2023 to 21.06.2026, and that his tenure has been affirmed by the communication dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Election Commission of India.

29. Thus, both the petitioner and R4 claim themselves to be the President of an unrecognized political party, giving rise to an internal dispute with respect to the leadership of the party. The petitioner initially approached this Court as well as the appellate court, and thereafter approached the civil forum. Since the dispute pertains to rival claims within an unrecognized political party, the civil court is the competent forum to adjudicate such issues. Accordingly, O.S. No. 664 of 2026 has been filed on the file of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

30. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 11 of 2026 seeking to freeze the “Mango” symbol allotted to the party. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, the provision of law under which such relief is sought has not been specified in the said interlocutory application. Though it is stated that the application has been filed pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the prayer in the application reflects a request to stay the allotment of the symbol, whereas the arguments advanced seek freezing of the symbol. This inconsistency clearly indicates that the petitioner was not certain about the precise nature of the relief sought before the trial court.

31. As on date, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the first and fifth respondents, the Election Commission of India has already notified the Assembly elections in the States of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 15.03.2026. It is an admitted fact that the election process in Puducherry has been completed, and in Tamil Nadu, the election process has commenced. It is also evident that the PMK political party is contesting the elections in both States.

32. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present application seeking to freeze the “Mango” symbol by issuing directions to the first respondent, namely the Election Commission of India. It is a settled proposition of law, as laid down in various decisions of the Apex Court, that once the election notification has been issued, no order shall be passed in a manner that interferes with the election process. The same has already been affirmed by this Court while disposing of CRP No. 1530 of 2026, by relying upon the ratio laid down in (2000) 8 SCC 216 (Para 32), extracted hereinabove.

                     " 32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us herein above:

                     (1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections,

                     (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election."

33. The records further reveal that both rival factions have submitted their nominations, and the same have been finalized. Moreover, the allotment of election symbols falls exclusively within the domain of the first respondent, namely the Election Commission of India.

34. Further relating to the choice and allotment of symbols is vested with the Election Commission of India in exercise of its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Section 10A pertains to concessions to candidates set up by unrecognized parties which were earlier recognized as national or State parties. As per the communication issued by the Election Commission of India to R4, the “Mango” symbol has been allotted to the PMK political party.

35. At present, both the petitioner and the fourth respondent are making rival claims to the presidency of the party. In consequence thereof, the present interim application has been filed seeking to freeze the symbol in order to avoid voter confusion in the forthcoming elections, by directing the Election Commission of India. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, the petitioner ought to have approached the civil court for a declaration as to who is entitled to represent the party and use the symbol. Instead, the petitioner has sought directions against the Election Commission of India, which is a constitutional authority. Such a relief is not maintainable in law. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, the relief sought by the petitioner is not maintainable in law, and the prayer is also unsustainable.

36 . With regard to the submission of the petitioner that he was directed to approach the civil forum for appropriate relief, it is true that the petitioner has approached the civil court in view of the rival claims between himself and R4, including the issue relating to the use of the symbol. It is also contended that the Election Commission of India has not responded to his communications regarding allotment of the symbol, leaving him with no alternative remedy but to approach the civil court.

37. However, as discussed above, though the civil court is competent to adjudicate the rival claims between the parties, the specific relief sought in the present application is not legally permissible. Once the election process has commenced, any order passed by the court which may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing, or protracting the election proceedings cannot be granted. The invocation of judicial remedies in such matters must be postponed until the completion of the election process. Further, the directions sought against the first respondent are also not sustainable.

38. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and in light of the settled legal position, this Court finds that the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the IA.No.11/2026 in OS.No. 664/2026 on the file of the XIII City Civil Court, Chennai. The said order does not warrant any interference.

39. Accordingly, this Civil Revision case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.