Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1624 (JHR)

Purusottam Lal Gutgutia v. Sunil Kumar Rai

2009-12-19

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 22.3.2007 (Annexure-G) passed by the Subordinate Judge-5th, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 174 of 2003 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order-I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Praying for impleading him as a party in the suit, was rejected. 3. For better appreciation of the issues raised in this writ application, a brief note of the background history of this case needs to be mentioned:- Prior to the Title Suit under reference in this case, a Title Suit vide Title Suit No. 83 of 94/49 of 94 was filed by the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai through its General Secretary, Govind Prasad Dalmia against one Krishna Nand Jha and others, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar. During the pendency of the suit, by an interim order dated 13.3.1997, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar was appointed as receiver. The' suit had however ended in compromise and was decreed in terms of the compromise decree dated 10.5.2001. Thereafter, a committee comprising of five members was constituted by election, as the Managing Committee of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandal. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar being the appointed receiver, had proceeded to conduct auction bid of nine shops belonging to the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandal. The action of-the Deputy Commissioner was challenged on behalf of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai and by order dated 10.5.2001 the learned Sub-Judge had clarified that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar was authorized only for conducting the bid and will not make any final settlement. 5. The 'present plaintiffs/respondents in Title Suit No. 174 of 2001 happen to be the bidders who had participated in the bid and being aggrieved that despite being acknowledged as the highest bidders, the shops were not allotted to them, they filed Title Suit No. 174 of 2003 before the Court of the Sub-Judge, Deoghar praying for declaring that they/plaintiffs are entitled for the settlement of the shops in question and for an order for delivery of possession of the shops. It appears that the plaintiffs/respondents had impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar only, as the defendant in the suit. 6. It appears that the plaintiffs/respondents had impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar only, as the defendant in the suit. 6. An attempt was made thereafter by some of the members of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai to get themselves impleaded in the suit as defendants and petitions were filed by them under Order-I, Rule 10, C.P.C. The prayers of such persons were however rejected by the trial court on the ground that they being merely life members of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai, do not have any authority to represent the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandal. 7. Later, the present petitioner filed a similar petition under Order-I, Rule 10 C.P.C. praying for allowing him to be impleaded as a party defendant in the said suit on the ground that he is a bonafide member of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai as well as the Executive Member of the Managing Committee and is also in charge of the Leprosy Rehabilitation Promotion Unit, Madhupur of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai and is therefore competent to represent the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai and since admittedly, the properties in question, namely the shops for which the plaintiffs have advanced their claims, belongs to the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai, and- the solitary defendant namely Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar having not taken any steps for filing written statements and due his failure to contest the suit, the interest of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai is likely to be jeopardized, he has sought to intervene. 8. The above prayer of the petitioner was contested by the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground that it was misconceived and not maintainable as because the petition was filed by the petitioner at the be hest of one Om Prakasn Chhauchhariya and others whose similar applications were earlier rejected by the trial court. Objection was also taken on the ground that the petitioner Purushottam Lai Gutgutia has no. locus standi to represent the Santhal Pahariya Seva MandaI. 9. Upon considering the rival submission, the learned court below dismissed the petitioner's prayer on the ground that the petitioner's name does not appear in the Memorandum of Association and Rules of Constitution and Business of Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai and that a similar petition filed earlier by others including one Om Prakash Chhauchhariya and Swai Ram Maheshwari, was rejected. 9. Upon considering the rival submission, the learned court below dismissed the petitioner's prayer on the ground that the petitioner's name does not appear in the Memorandum of Association and Rules of Constitution and Business of Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai and that a similar petition filed earlier by others including one Om Prakash Chhauchhariya and Swai Ram Maheshwari, was rejected. A further observation was made that the intervenor petitioner has got no concern or legal interest in the present suit. 10. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel and upon going through the contents of the writ application as also the documents on record as well as the impugned order of the court below, it appears that the fact that nine shops for the settlement of which the plaintiffs had filed the suit before the court below, belongs' admittedly to the Santhal Pahariya Seva MandaI. It also appears that the Deputy Commissioner has been impleaded as the sole defendant in the suit on the ground that he is the receiver appointed by the court in an earlier title suit and it was he who had conducted the bid for settlement of the shops. It also appears that the defendant Deputy Commissioner had failed to file his written statement within the period stipulated under the Rules and therefore, the trial court had passed an order disallowing him to file any written statement in the suit. It also appears that by a clarificatory order, the court which had appointed the Deputy Commissioner as the receiver of the properties of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai, had restrained him from making any final settlement of the shops. 11. Apparently, the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai, who is the owner of the shops, has not been impleaded in the suit. The petitioner being a life member of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai and one of the members of its Executive Committee, has wanted to express his anxiety for representing the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai in order to protect the properties and interest of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandal. 12. However, it appears that even though the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai could be regarded as a necessary party to the suit, but it could be represented only by such person who is duly authorized by entire body of the Managing Committee of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandal. 12. However, it appears that even though the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai could be regarded as a necessary party to the suit, but it could be represented only by such person who is duly authorized by entire body of the Managing Committee of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandal. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had though professed his locus standi on the ground that he is a life member of the Santhal Pahariya Seva MaMal and that he is one of the members of the Executive Committee, but has not been able to produce any lawful authority issued to him by the Managing Committee of the Seva Mandai to represent the Santhai Pahariya Seva Mandai in the suit. It is upon considering these aspects relating to the petitioner's claim that the trial court has observed that the petitioner does not possess the locus standi to represent Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai and the interest, of the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai in the shops under reference. To the above extent I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below nor any reason to interfere with the same. 13. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with an observation "that if the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai offers to intervene through any person legally authorized to represent the Santhal Pahariya Seva Mandai in the suit, the trial court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.