Madras High Court
Royal Villa Residents Association vs The Project Management Committee ... on 3 July, 2018
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.07.2018
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3535 of 2017
Royal Villa Residents Association,
Rep. by its Secretary
Usha Viswanath
New.No.6/1, Royal Villa,
4th Main Road Extension, Kotturpuram,
Chennai - 600 0085. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Project Management Committee Kotturpuram
Officers C-operative Housing Society,
Rep. by its authorized persons
1. K.Govindarajan
2. R.Dorairaj
3. T.N.Kapaleeswaran
4. Vani Prakash
5. R.Radhakrishnan
6. S.Rajendran
7. S.Rajendran
8. K.Singaravelu
9. K.A.Sivagnanam
10. G.Raju
11. G.Rama Devi
12. F.Lawrence Swamy
13. D.Rama
2. S.Krishnamurthy
15. V.Jyaram Iyar
16. S.Sridhar
17. S.Sridhar
3 to 16 represented by the
Power of Attorney No.17 S.Sridhar
18. R.Balasubramanian
19. G.Subramanian rep. by
his power of Attorney holder G.Suryanarayana
20. Srinivasan
S.Arun Kumar rep. by
his Power of Attorney holder Nanda Kumar
21. N.Pasupathy
22. G.Renuka Grishkumar
23. T.N.Parthasarathy
24. P.Narayanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.09.2016 made in I.A.No.4948 of 2013 in O.S.No.4636 of 2012 on the file of the V Assistant Judge F.A/c.II Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Sundar
For Respondents : Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan
ORDER
The relief sought for in this revision petition is to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.09.2016 made in I.A.No.4948 of 2013 in O.S.No.4636 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional Judge F.A/c.II Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The first and second respondents herein filed a suit against the revision petitioner in O.S.No.4636 of 2012 before the City Civil Court, Chennai. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents 1 & 2 filed an Interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. before II City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.4948 of 2013 in O.S.No.4636 of 2012 to implead the respondent Nos. 3 to 24 as party respondent in the said suit. The trial Court after giving opportunity to both sides, allowed the application on merits and declared that the respondent Nos.3 to 24 are the necessary parties to the said suit.
3. Aggrieved against the order dated. 01.09.2016, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first and second respondents have filed the suit in O.S.No.4636 of 2012 without seeking permission from the Court in compliance of Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C. Therefore, the revision petitioner has filed CRP (PD) No. 3160 of 2012 to strike out the plaint and that was dismissed by this Court with a direction to work out his remedy before the trial Court.
6. While so, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an Interlocutory application to implead the respondents 3 to 24 as parties to the suit under Order I Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. and that was resisted by the revision petitioner on the ground that they have not produced any document of title or interest over the property though they have stated in para 2 of the affidavit in I.A.No.4948 of 2013 in O.S.No.4636 of 2012 that they are also members of the society and he got certificates by filing an application under the Right to Information Act. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have not produced any document to show that the proposed parties are members of the society and even they have not filed a list of the details of the members. The trial Court without considering the fact that they have not produced any of the documents to show that either they are members of the society or having any right over the property, simply allowed the application. Hence, the order of the trial Court warrants interference. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (Purushottam Umedbhai and Co and Appellants V. M/S.Manilal and Sons) reported in AIR 1961 SC-325.
7. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs' society has become defunct and as on the date of filing the suit, the society does not exist and it has become defunct. Therefore neither the society nor members of the society can file the suit and that the permission under Order I Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C has not been obtained. Therefore the order passed by the trial court needs interference.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that even the revision petitioner himself has admitted in his written statement that the necessary parties are owners of individual flats and it is not as if the proposed parties have not been impleaded in the application only on the ground that they are members of the society. Since, they are the joint owners of the property, they are ready to file all the documents during the trial to prove that they are having interest over the property. Once the revision petitioner has admitted the same in his written statement, he cannot say that the proposed parties/the respondents 3 to 24 cannot be impleaded in the suit. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
10. On a perusal of records, it is seen that it is not in dispute that the first and second respondents filed a suit against the revision petitioner for bare injunction. Pending suit, the present application has been filed to implead the respondents 3 to 24 as proper and necessary parties. According to the revision petitioner, such application has been filed without complying with the mandatory provisions under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. Earlier, the revision petitioner filed CRP (PD) No. 3160 of 2012 before this Court to reject the plaint, it was dismissed with liberty to work out his remedy before the trial court.
11. It is the submission of the revision petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any document to prove that the respondents 3 to 24 are members of the society. On the contrary, it is stated that the respondents 3 to 24 are also joint owners of the property and that the documents to substantiate the same will be filed at the time of trial. Accepting the contention raised by the respondents 1 and 2, in para 2 to 4 of the affidavit in I.A.No.4948 of 2013 that the proposed parties are the joint owners, even though they did not produce any document regarding this issue, the trial court allowed the application.
12. It is a settled proposition of law that while deciding the application under Order I Rule 8, the Court has to see whether the members/ parties are either proper party or necessary party to the suit. The right of those parties can be agitated before the trial Court only during the trial and not in this revision petition. At the same time, it is open to the revision petitioner to raise the defence with respect to the right of the respondents 3 to 24, who were impleaded, by filing additional written statement as regards the right of the respondents 3 to 24 in the subject matter of the suit.
13. However, in this case, in the affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 have stated that they are the joint owners of the property and they are ready to produce all the documents before the trial Court at the time of trial. Accepting the said contention, the trial Court allowed the application for impleading respondents 3 to 24. While deciding this revision, this Court has to see whether the respondents 3 to 24 are either necessary parties or proper parties and whether they have any interest in the suit property after considering these aspects, the trial court had allowed the application in I.A.N.4948 of 2013. Hence, this Court does not find any valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. There is no arbitrariness found in the order passed by the trial Court.
14. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court and finds no merits in this revision petition. However, the defendant/revision petition is at liberty to take up his defence and agitate during the trial before the trial Court.
P.VELMURUGAN, J., vum
15. Since the suit was pending from 2012 onwards, the trial Court is directed to dispose the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. With the above direction, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
03.07.2018 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order vum Note: Issue order copy on 01.08.2018 To The V Additional Judge F.A/c.II Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.
C.R.P.(PD).No.3535 of 2017