Madras High Court
C.S.I.Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese vs Zopher Jothipaul on 29 November, 2016
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD) (NPD)No.1552 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010
1.C.S.I.Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese,
Through its Treasury,
Caldwell Higher Secondary
School Campus,
Beach Road, Tuticorin-628001.
2.P.S.Samuel Selvaraj
Treasurer,
Through its Treasury,
Caldwell Higher Secondary
School Campus,
Beach Road, Tuticorin-628001.
3.Rt.Rev.J.A.D.Jebachandran,
Bishop,
Church of South India,
Tuticorin ? Nazareth Doicese,
Caldwell School Compound,
Tuticorin.
4.Jeyaraj Annapackiam,
CSI Polytechnic College,
Through its Correspondent
D.Anantha Jothi Balan
Margasis Nagar, Nazareth : Petitioners
Vs.
1.Zopher Jothipaul
Secretary,
CSI Congregational Member and
Employees Welfare Association,
Tuticorin.
2.Alexander Stephen : Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in
I.A.No.976 of 2009 in O.S.No.141 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif
of Srivaikundam.
!For Petitioners : Mr.S.Subbiah
^For Respondents : Mr.R.Anand for R1
No Appearance for R2
Orders Reserved : 10.11.2016
Orders pronounced : 29.11.2016
:ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in I.A.No.976 of 2009 in O.S.No.141 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif of Srivaikundam.
2.The petitioners have filed the present suit in O.S.No.141 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,250/- with interest and totally sum of Rs.20,891.25, being the amount misappropriated and illegally collected by the second respondent/defendant. When the said suit is pending before the Court below, the first respondent herein, as a Secretary of CSI Congregational Member and Employees Welfare Association, Tuticorin., filed an application in I.A.No.976 of 2009, to implead himself as a party in the aforesaid suit. According to the petitioners, no relief sought for against the first respondent as claimed against the second respondent/defendant in the said suit. However, the objection made by the revision petitioners was not at all considered by the Court below and the said application was allowed without any reasons. Aggrieved against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the dispute is only between the petitioners and the second defendant. The relationship between the revision petitioners and the second defendant is only the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the first respondent, who is a Secretary of Employees Welfare Association, cannot have any locus standi to implead himself as a party to the suit. The said suit has been filed only against the 2nd respondent/defendant in an individual capacity. The first respondent herein has filed the present application, at that time, petitioners filed objection in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. to sue in the representative capacity. As decided by this Court, impleadment is concerned, for impleadment of a proper and necessary party, the theory that the plaintiff is the dominus litis is not always an absolute rule and the Court is required to exercise its discretion and decide as to whether in the absence of such parties whether, the Court would be in a position to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions, which are involved in the suit. Therefore, while considering the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C, the Court ought not to over stretch the theory of dominus litis. As seen from the facts of the present case, the reason, as to how the first respondent herein would be a necessary party was not at all explained in the affidavit. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in M.P.Venkatachalam and another V. Govindan and others reported in 2010(3) TLNJ 109 (Civil).
4.The counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent has filed the present application to implead them as a party, since the revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.673 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C., to sue in the representative capacity. Paper publication was effected on 24.07.2009. The first respondent being a member of the association has filed objections on 06.10.2009 and wanted to implead him in the suit. Hence, he filed the instant application to implead him as a party in the suit.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6.The instant I.A.No.976 of 2009 has been filed by the first respondent for impleading himself as a party in the suit proceedings in O.S.No.141 of 2009, only on the basis of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 98of C.P.C. seeking permission to sue the suit in the representative capacity.
7.On perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No.976 of 2009 would show that the first respondent has not explained as to how the first respondent has aggrieved by the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the suit. The prayer in the suit is to grant a decree to recover a sum of Rs.20,250/- along with interest viz., totally a sum of Rs.20,891.25 against the defendant/second respondent herein. Therefore, the first respondent has not explained as to how he is a necessary party to the suit.
8.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of this Court in M.P.Venkatachalam and another V. Govindan and others reported in 2010(3) TLNJ 109 (Civil), wherein, this Court has held as follows:
?10. .............. For impleadment of a proper and necessary party, the theory that the plaintiff is the dominus litis is not always an absolute rule and the Court is required to exercise its discretion and decide as to whether in the absence of such parties whether, the Court would be in a position to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions, which are involved in the suit. Therefore, while considering the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C, the Court ought not to over stretch the theory of dominus litis.?
9.Considering the above decision along with the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the first respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and the trial Court, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners, erroneously allowed the instant application and the said order warrant interference by this Court.
10.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2010 passed in I.A.No.976 of 2009 in O.S.No.141 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif of Srivaikundam, is hereby set aside and the I.A.No.976 of 2009 is dismissed. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The District Munsif, Madurai Taluk..