Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 483 (MAD)

Matchakalai v. The Victoria Edward Hall & Others

2005-03-21

R.BANUMATHI

body2005
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition, filed under Sec.115 C.P.C. against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai dated 09.07.2001 in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 in O.S.No.37 of 2001, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai dated 09.07.2001 in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 in O.S.No.37 of 2001. Aggrieved over recording of Joint Compromise Memo filed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and dismissal of the Suit and the Order made in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001, the Third Party – Matchakalai has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2. When the Revision Petition was taken up for hearing, the Revision Petitioner represented by Counsel Mr.P.Senthur Pandian. Notice has been sent to Respondents / Plaintiff and the Defendants, who were party in the Suit O.S.No.37 of 2001. Notice sent and service awaited. Since Suit in O.S.No.37 of 2001 itself has been disposed of recording the Compromise Memo, the hearing of the Respondents is not necessary. 3. Relevant facts could briefly be stated thus: - The First Defendant – Victoria Edward Hall (hereinafter referred to as D-1-Society) is a Registered Society. D-1-Society was formed to put up a Town Hall under the name "Victoria Edward Hall" in the City of Madurai. The Association has its own bye-laws and Rules for effective and proper administration. As per bye-law, there are Four types of Members known as – Honorary Member, Regular Member, Associate Member and another is known as Life Member. The Plaintiff had participated in the last Election proceedings which took place on 30.07.2000 and he exercised his votes. At that time, he had noticed that there were nearly 1495 Members in the Voters List. As per the knowledge and understanding of the Plaintiff, there cannot be Voting Members more than 550 as per the Resolution passed by the General Body on 22.07.1990. Since there were many discrepancies in the Voters List, the Plaintiff applied before D-11 for issuance of List of Members as on 30.07.2000. From the List furnished to him, the Plaintiff came to know that 746 Members have been admitted and enrolled in D-11's Office. The admission of such Members more than 650 Members is as against the Resolution passed on 22.07.1990. From the List furnished to him, the Plaintiff came to know that 746 Members have been admitted and enrolled in D-11's Office. The admission of such Members more than 650 Members is as against the Resolution passed on 22.07.1990. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for (a)declaring that the Voters List of the year 2000-2001 is incorrect and invalid; (b)Declaring that the Election held on 30.07.2000 electing the present Secretary and Committee Members for the Society for 2000-2001 is null and void; (c)granting an order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 2 to 10 – the Present Committee of the First Defendant from functioning as Secretary and Committee Members; (d)consequently appointing a Competent Person as Receiver of the First Defendant Society till a valid Committee is elected with proper Voters List. and other reliefs. 4. The Suit was resisted by the Defendants. D-1-Society and the Defendants have objected to the Maintainability of the Suit. Upon consideration of the submissions, the learned District Munsif found that the Suit can be maintained and that Sec.36 of the Societies Act would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the Suit, which has been filed for Declaration and Permanent Injunction etc., on the file of the Court. 5. C.R.P.No.556 of 2001: - The Society represented by its Secretary – I.Ismail has filed C.R.P.No.556 of 2001 challenging the Decretal Order dated 12.02.2001 in I.A.No.87 of 2001 wherein the Principal District Munsif, Madurai has held the Suit is maintainable and also appointing the Receiver. Elaborately considering the submissions of both parties and pointing out that the next election itself was very near i.e. on 30.07.2001, P.THANGAVEL, J., has disposed of the said Revision Petition by order dated 30.04.2001 with the following observations: - "....The Election for the next period of one year from 30.07.2001 is fast approaching. In view of the said position, this Court desires to direct that the Election for the Secretary and Office bearers of the Revision Petitioner Society can be held in accordance with bye laws of the Society as well as the Act and Rules with the approved members who can vote in such election as recognised by the Registrar of Societies on the date of Notification for the election to be held on 30.07.2001. The election may be conducted, smoothly, to avoid further complication between the warring parties, by appointment of a Nominee by the Trial Court. The election may be conducted, smoothly, to avoid further complication between the warring parties, by appointment of a Nominee by the Trial Court. As both parties are urging that they are interested in safeguarding the name and fame of the Revision Petitioner Society, this Court honestly believe that they will extend full co-operation for conduct of the Election for the period of one year from 30.07.2001 smoothly...." 6. Joint Memo dated 26.06.2001:- After disposal of the Revision Petition, when the Suit in O.S.No.37 of 2001 came up for hearing, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have filed Joint Memo stating that the Suit may be dismissed without costs in terms of the Joint Memo. The Joint Memo reads as follows:- "...1. The Election for the Hall for the year 2001-2002 may be conducted as per the High Court Order in C.R.P.No.556 of 2001 and as per bye law. The list of voters approved by the Government of Tamilnadu and filed by the District Registrar, Madurai for the year 1999-2001 is produced by the First Defendant and perused by the Plaintiff. The First Defendant states that Managing Committee elected for the First Defendant for the year 2000-2001 was validly held with valid voters list. 2. The Appeal filed by the First Defendant Society in C.M.A.No.29 of 2001 against the Interim Injunction passed in I.A.No.39 of 2001 by this Hon'ble Court and the Appeal in C.M.A.No.30 of 2001 against the order of appointing an Advocate Commissioner Thiru.R.Ganesan in I.A.No.40 of 2001 have been allowed by the learned District Judge, Madurai on 15.06.2001 and the Advocate Receiver was removed and discharged and the Defendants 1 to 10 have resumed their respective offices on 18.06.2001. 3. Thiru. N.Murugesan a Senior Advocate and Life Member of the First Defendant's Society and the Official Receiver of Madurai is agreed by both the parties as the Election Officer in compliance with the High Court direction for the ensuing Election for First Defendant's Society to conduct its election for the year 2001-2002 as per the Schedule of Election and prescribed by the Bye law. Both parties therefore agree that the Suit be dismissed without costs....." The Joint Memo was recorded and the Suit was dismissed on 09.07.2001. 7. I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001:- This Petition was filed by the Revision Petitioner – Third Parties viz., R.Thangavel, M.Ramasubramanian, R.Matchakalai and V.Kannan praying the Court to implead them as Defendants 13 to 16. Both parties therefore agree that the Suit be dismissed without costs....." The Joint Memo was recorded and the Suit was dismissed on 09.07.2001. 7. I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001:- This Petition was filed by the Revision Petitioner – Third Parties viz., R.Thangavel, M.Ramasubramanian, R.Matchakalai and V.Kannan praying the Court to implead them as Defendants 13 to 16. The Petitioners / Proposed parties have contended that as against the direction of the High Court in C.R.P.No.556 of 2001, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have been trying to compromise the matter with the 13th Respondent / Plaintiff. According to the Third Parties, if the matter is allowed to be compromised, the Members interest would be greatly affected. It is further alleged that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are trying to compromise the Suit for their personal enrichment at the cost of D-1-Society's resources and against the findings of the High Court, Madras. Hence, the Petition in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 was filed on 18.06.2001 before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai to implead the Third Parties to the proceedings. 8. On 09.07.2001, the Suit in O.S.No.37 of 2001 and I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 were disposed of. Learned District Munsif found that the terms of compromise and the Joint Memo filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants is in accordance with interest and welfare of D-1-Society. Further pointing out that the parties have agreed to hold the Elections, Thiru.N.Murugesan, a Senior Advocate, Life Member of the Society and Official Receiver, Madurai was agreed to be the Election Officer and that the terms of compromise is well in accordance with the direction of the High Court. On those findings, the Joint Memo was recorded and the Suit was dismissed. When the Suit was dismissed, I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 was also dismissed finding that the proposed Third Parties have not made out a prima facie case for impleading them. 9. Assailing the dismissal of the Petition, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Third Party has submitted that the learned District Munsif has committed serious error in not admitting the Application filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C, contending that the Joint Memo was in violation of the directions of High Court in C.R.P.No.556 of 2001. It is submitted that the learned District Munsif has not kept in view the interest of D-1-Society. It is submitted that the learned District Munsif has not kept in view the interest of D-1-Society. Drawing the attention of the Court to the dates of filing the Joint Memo (26.06.2001) and filing the Application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C dated 18.06.2001, it is submitted that the Revision Petitioner and other parties have taken prompt steps by filing the Application to implead themselves and parties to the Suit in protecting the interest of D-1-Society. Placing reliance upon A.ALI AKBAR ..VS.. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, PATTUKOTTAI (A.I.R. 1993 MADRAS 51), it is further submitted that notwithstanding the disposal of the Suit, the Third Party aggrieved by the Order of the Court could very well file a Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Upon consideration of the submissions of the Revision Petitioner / Third Party and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Revision Petition: - i.Recording the Joint Memo filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants when the Suit in O.S.No.37 of 2001 has been dismissed, can the Revision Petitioner / Proposed Party, who sought to implead themselves can still maintain Revision Petition? ii.In the light of the dismissal of the Suit, whether order of rejecting the Petition in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 suffers from any serious infirmity warranting interference? 11. The Petition in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 was filed by the Revision Petitioner and other Third Parties to implead themselves. As per the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, a Party can be impleaded in the Suit for determining the questions: - i.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Applicant is a necessary and proper party? ii.Whether presence of such a party before the court is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the matter and granting a complete and effective decree to the party entitled to it? iii.Whether such a party interested would be directly affected as a result of the decree or it would only be affected remotely, indirectly and distantly? The questions involved in the Suit refer only to the questions between the parties to the suit. Impleading of the parties is necessary "to settle all the questions involved in the Suit". iii.Whether such a party interested would be directly affected as a result of the decree or it would only be affected remotely, indirectly and distantly? The questions involved in the Suit refer only to the questions between the parties to the suit. Impleading of the parties is necessary "to settle all the questions involved in the Suit". The expression "to settle all the questions involved in the Suit" means all material questions arising from the subject matter of the suit, which affect the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and also the third parties. When the Suit in O.S.No.37 of 2001 itself has been dismissed and the Suit is not pending, there arises no necessity "...to settle all the questions involved in the Suit". Under such circumstances, the Application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. no longer survives for consideration. 12. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Suit, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended on the maintainability of the Revision and that the Civil Court is to protect the right of D-1-Society, which has been formed for noble cause. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in A.ALI AKBAR ..VS.. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, PATTUKOTTAI (A.I.R. 1993 MADRAS 51). The following two fold contentions are raised: i.that the Court ought not to have recorded the Joint Memo when the necessary parties were not before the Court; ii.The Joint Memo filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant was in violation of the direction and undertaking of the parties in C.R.P.No.556 of 2001. 13. In A.ALI AKBAR ..VS.. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, PATTUKOTTAI (A.I.R. 1993 MADRAS 51), this Court has allowed the Revision Petition filed under the Revisional Jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Third Party – Akbar Ali has preferred the Revision Petition. In the said case, the District Munsif, Pattukkottai has granted permanent injunction restraining any other mosque except the mosque in Adhiramapattinam from conducting Jumma prayers, which according to him is patently without jurisdiction. According to the Petitioner, the District Munsif, Pattukkottai did not have any jurisdiction to even pass such a decree which has resulted in seriously interfering with the religious rights of the Petitioner and several members of the Muslim community living in Adhiramapattinam Town. According to the Petitioner, the District Munsif, Pattukkottai did not have any jurisdiction to even pass such a decree which has resulted in seriously interfering with the religious rights of the Petitioner and several members of the Muslim community living in Adhiramapattinam Town. Since the Impugned Order seriously interferes with the religious rights of the Petitioner and several Members of the Muslim community living in Adhiramapattinam Town and that the Order of District Munsif, Pattukkottai was patently erroneous, AR.LAKSHMANAN,J., (as he then was) has allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the Impugned Order of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai in O.S.No.338 of 1992. The said principle cannot be applied to the case in hand. In C.R.P.No.556 of 2001, this Court has observed that the Election for the next period of one year from 30.07.2001 is fast approaching. In the Revision Petition, the parties have agreed to conduct the election. As per their Memo of Undertaking, filed in the Trial Court in O.S.No.37 of 2001 Thiru.N.Murugesan, a Senior Advocate and Life Member of D-1-Society and also Official Receiver of Madurai was agreed by the parties as the Election Officer to conduct the election in compliance with the direction of the High Court. Satisfying himself with the terms of the Compromise and the Joint Memo is in accordance with the directions of High Court in C.R.P.No.556 of 2001, learned District Munsif, recording the Joint Memo dismissed the Suit. 14. The contention that the Joint Memo filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants is in violation of their undertaking in the Revision Petition has no merits. By careful consideration of the Terms of Compromise and the direction of this Court in the Civil Revision Petition, this Court is of the view that the directions of this Court in the Civil Revision Petition has been substantially complied with. Learned District Munsif has rightly rejected the Petition filed by the third parties finding that no prima facie case has been made out for impleading them. Learned counsel has submitted that the Court is to protect the interest of D-1-Society by intervening in the Impugned Order. In a Civil Suit where the Court is adjudicating the Civil rights of the Parties, the Court cannot probe into the matter as in the case of Public Interest Litigation. Learned counsel has submitted that the Court is to protect the interest of D-1-Society by intervening in the Impugned Order. In a Civil Suit where the Court is adjudicating the Civil rights of the Parties, the Court cannot probe into the matter as in the case of Public Interest Litigation. If the third parties feel that the filing of the Joint Memo and the dismissal of the Suit in O.S.No.37 of 2001 is collusive and against the interest of the Society and that the decree of dismissal in O.S.No.37 of 2001 cannot be allowed to stand, it is for the Revision Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. In this Revision Petition, when the Court is called upon to appreciate the correctness of the order made in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001, the Court cannot further deeply go into the question of facts and other aspects. The order of the learned District Munsif, Madurai in rejecting the Petition in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 in O.S.No.37 of 2001 is correct. This Civil Revision Petition is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. For the reasons stated above, the order of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai dated 09.07.2001 in I.A.SR.No.10559 of 2001 in O.S.No.37 of 2001 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Conseqeuntly, the connected C.M.P.No.22658 of 2001 is dismissed as unnecessary.