Madras High Court
K.Tajudeen vs Arcot Endowments By Litigating ... on 19 August, 2019
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.08.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.178 & 179 of 2014(PD)
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 (in each case)
K.Tajudeen ... Petitioner / Petitioner/
Impleading party
vs.
1. Arcot Endowments by Litigating Muthawalli
Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali,
Amir Mahal,Chennai 600 014. ... 1st Respondent/ Respondent
Appellant
2. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Rep. by its Executive Officer,
New No.7, Old No.4,
9th Cross Street,
Indira Nagar,
Chennai 600 020 ...2nd Respondent/ Respondent/
Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
against the order passed in I.A.No.184 of 2009 in Wakf C.M.A.No.2 of
2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli dated
21.11.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumurugan
For R1 : Mr.K.S.Sankar Murali
For R2 : No Appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
COMMON ORDER
1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2011 in I.A.No.184 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2002 and the order dated 09.03.2011 in I.A.No.371 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2002. The said Interlocutory Applications were filed by the Revision Petitioner herein in order to implead himself in the said C.M.A.'s. The I.A.'s were dismissed on the basis that inter se disputes between the Revision Petitioner / third party Petitioner and the Appellant cannot be looked into in the appeal and that the earlier petition filed before this Court by the said Revision Petitioner/ 3rd party Petitioner was dismissed by the High Court.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned counsel for the first Respondent. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Wakf Board passed the order dated 11.06.2002 on the basis of proceedings initiated by the Revision Petitioner and a few others who are interested in the Management of the first Respondent. In this regard, he referred to the resolution dated 25.03.2002 of the Wakf Board, wherein the submissions of the Revision Petitioner and others with regard to alleged mal-administration of the Prince of Arcot Endowments was adverted to. He also referred to the order of the Wakf Board dated 11.06.2002 which also refers to the submissions made by the petitioners, including the Revision Petitioner. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 In fact, he pointed out that the presence of the Revision Petitioner and other co-petitioners, is specifically mentioned in the said proceedings of the Wakf Board. Consequently, he submitted that when appeals were filed by the first Respondent herein against the said order of the Wakf Board, the Revision Petitioner should have been joined as a party to the said proceedings. However, he submitted that the first Respondent herein failed to join the Revision Petitioner as a party to the C.M.A's. Consequently, he was constrained to file the impleading petitions which resulted in the impugned orders. With regard to the findings in the impugned order that the Revision Petitioner / third party had filed the petition regarding the same subject matter which was dismissed by the High Court, the learned counsel submitted that this is an incorrect finding in the impugned order in as much as the High Court did not consider his impleading petition namely C.M.P.No.1336 of 2004 in C.R.P.No.1126 of 2002 and pass orders thereon on merits.
3. In this connection, he referred to paragraph no.22 of the said order, wherein it is stated that the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of subject to the observations made earlier and consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. By reference to the said paragraph of the order, the learned counsel submitted that the finding in the impugned order that the High Court had considered the petition for impleadment and dismissed the same is incorrect.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. In response, the learned counsel for the first Respondent submitted that the petitioner's father was a tenant in one of the premises of the first Respondent Endowment and that proceedings for ejectment were initiated against the petitioner's father and that an order of eviction was issued and that eventually execution proceedings had to be initiated so as to obtain delivery of possession of the property from the Revision Petitioner. He further submitted that the Petitioner had initiated several proceedings against the first Respondent including the filing of a police complaint, W.P.(MD) No.29938 of 2004 and that these proceedings were rejected on the basis that there is no public interest in the writ petition filed by the Revision Petitioner.
5. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first Respondent submitted that the Revision Petitioner has continually interfered in the affairs of the first Respondent on account of his animosity because he was dispossessed from the premises of the first Respondent. Accordingly, he submitted that the Petitioner should not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of the first Respondent. He further submitted that the first Respondent is an Endowment and that the Wakf Board has very limited powers in respect of such Endowment mainly confined to the collection of contribution. Accordingly, he submitted that he has a very good case on merits in the appeals filed by him. With reference to the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 application for impleadment, he relied upon the following judgments in order to contend that the Revision Petitioner is not a necessary party and that, therefore, the first Respondent cannot be compelled to implead the Revision Petitioner as a party to the C.M.A.
(i) Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd 2010 (5) CTC 354 wherein, it was held as under:
“12.3. If a person makes an application for being impleaded contending that he is a necessary party, and if the court finds that he is a necessary party, it can implead him. If the plaintiff opposes such impleadment, then instead of impleading such a party, who is found to be a necessary party, the court may proceed to dismiss the suit by holding that the applicant was a necessary party and in his absence the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the suit.”
(ii) Kasturi vs Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733 wherein, it was held as under:
“13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle http://www.judis.nic.in 6 all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person. ”
(iii) Civil Appeal Nos.5522 to 5523 of 2019 in Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs Kiran Kant Robinson and the relevant paragraph is set out hereunder:
“ 5.2. An identical question came to be considered before this Court in the case of Kasturi (supra) and applying the principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litis, in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed and held that the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. It is further observed and held by this Court that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. The test are (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.”
6. By relying upon the said judgments, he submitted that only a necessary party can pray that he should be impleaded in the proceedings initiated by the Appellant and that a necessary party is one in whose absence a decree cannot be passed. In this case, he submitted that the appeal relates to the removal of the Muthavalli and that the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 said appeal can very well be prosecuted in the absence of the Revision Petitioner, who is certainly not a necessary party. Accordingly, he submitted that the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
7. By way of rejoinder submissions, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that he is not seeking impleadment in the original suit filed by the first Respondent and that it is an impleading application in an appeal against the order issued based on the proceedings initiated by the Revision Petitioner. He concluded his submissions by pointing out that the earlier C.M.P.'s filed by him for impleadment in C.R.P.No.1126 of 2002 was closed on account of the disposal of the C.M.A and was not decided on merits.
8. The pleadings, impugned order and oral submissions were carefully considered. From the resolution dated 08.04.2002 and the order of the Wakf Board dated 11.06.2002, it is abundantly clear that the Revision Petitioner was present as a petitioner in the said proceedings. It is also clear that the said order was passed after taking into consideration the submissions of the petitioners therein, including the Revision Petitioner, to the effect that there was mal-administration of the first Respondent Endowment. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the said Revision Petitioner was a petitioner in the original proceedings before the Wakf http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Board is liable to be accepted. The submissions of the learned counsel for the first Respondent that the Revision Petitioner is not a necessary party and that, therefore, he cannot be compelled to implead the Revision Petition as a party to the C.M.A. is liable to be rejected for the reason that the order of the Wakf Board was passed on the basis of proceedings initiated by the group of petitioners including the Revision Petitioner. In other words, this is not an application for impleadment in the original proceedings. Instead, it is an application by the petitioner in the original proceedings to be impleaded in the appellate proceedings.
9. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the first Respondent is an Endowment administering vast properties, it cannot be stated that the Revision Petitioner is not a proper party whose presence would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate all the questions that arise for consideration in the case. The fact that the Revision Petitioner was a tenant in one of the premises of the first Respondent and that he was evicted therefrom by initiation of several proceedings or that the Revision Petitioner initiated other proceedings against the first Respondent is not a ground to reject the application for impleadment in the C.M.A's in question. Furthermore, on perusal of the order dated 30.06.2006 in C.R.P.No.1126 of 2002, it is evident that the Court did not reject the C.M.P. for impleadment by considering the same on merits.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
10. Consequently, the conclusion in the impugned orders to the effect that the impleading petition filed by the Revision Petitioner in this Court was dismissed and that, therefore, the petitioner could not be permitted to re-agitate the same subject again is patently erroneous. Consequently, there are material irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Appellate Court while passing the impugned orders. Consequently, the said orders are liable to be interfered with. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.08.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sts
To
1) The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Trichirappalli
2) The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
sts
Common Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.178 & 179 of 2014(PD)
Dated:
19.08.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in