Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 4 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, ... vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990
In the case of Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Madras v. T. N. Ganapathy, , where it has been held that the provisions of Order I, Rule 8. C.P.C. included in the Code is in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the condition necessary for application of the provision is that person of whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest, i.e., the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass vs Som Dass (Deceased) Through His Chela ... on 28 August, 1975
In the case of Rikhu Dev Chela Bawa Harjug Dass v. Som Dass, , the Apex Court had ruled that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during pendency of the suit, but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of the Court. It had clearly been stated in paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment that when the suit is brought against the person in representative capacity and there is a devolution of the interest on the representative, the rule that has to be applied is Order XXII, Rule 10, C.P.C. and not Rule 3 or 4, whether the devolution takes place as consequence of death or for any other reason. In the present case, the devolution claimed by the revisionists is on the basis of being elected in place of late U. C. Saxena, who claimed himself as President of the mission on the basis of nomination and the subsequent election. After his death, the present revisionists claimed to replace the deceased President.
R. Venugopala Naidu And Ors vs Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities And Ors on 26 October, 1989
The Apex Court has also taken this view in the case of R . Venugopala Naidu and Ors. v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and Ors., 1989 (2) AWC 1479 (SC) : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 356, where it has been held that the word "parties" not confined to only plaintiffs and defendants in the suit but would include all those interested in the trust, the suit being representative in nature. Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. is by the representatives of large number of persons, who have a common interest. Thus the suit binds not only the parties named in the suit-title but all those who are interested in the trust. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court as well as this Court has clearly held that impleadment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. , this Court has also ruled that the impleadment can be permitted even suo motu at any stage of the proceedings from the pleadings of the either parties. It is apparent that the dispute regarding the office of President is continuing. Since the death of original President Ram Chandraji Maharaj and rivals claim are based, which can only be decided when the rival-claimants are also made application. The relief for declaration and injunction has been sought against the defendant, his employees and agents not to interfere in the affairs of Ram Chandra Mission. It is argued that late U.C. Saxena was not sued in a representative capacity as required under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. but was arrayed as defendant in his individual capacity. Therefore, after his death, the sole defendant could not be substituted by filing an impleadment application. The order dated 9.8 2000, has been annexed as Annexure-4A, permitting the plaintiffs to sue in representative capacity and the plaintiff was further directed to take complete steps as contemplated under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. The order of interim injunction was confirmed vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2000 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Original Suit No. 360 of 2000. Against which the revisionists preferred a First Appeal From Order-in this Court numbered as F.A.F.O. No. 15 of 2001, which is pending but no interim order has been passed in the said F.A.F.O. Another application was filed by the defendant late U.C Saxena under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., which was rejected and the Writ Petition No. 53330 of 2000 was preferred in this Court, which was dismissed on 19.11.2002. A review application was filed, which has not been decided till date. However, S.L.P. No. 6585 of 2003 challenging the order passed in writ petition dated 19.11.2002, was dismissed vide order dated 25.7.2003. The main thrust of argument on behalf of the revisionists is that in a registered Society, where elections are held in accordance with Section 3A (4) and Section 4 of the Act, the concept of heir, representative, agent or workman do not apply. Hence, after death of the sole defendant, who was sued in his personal capacity, the suit ceased to survive and there remains nothing where any application for impleadment or amendment could be entertained. An objection was filed by the revisionists, which was numbered as Objection No. 2454C on 12.11.2003. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6. The second argument advanced on behalf of the revisionists is that after advent of the amended Act No. 11 of 1984, election of the managing body of the registered Society is mandatory and nomination if any, is illegal as such the plaintiff-respondents whose claim is based on the so called nomination on behalf of P. Rajagopalachari has no legs to stand. Any such nomination ceases to exist and as such the plaintiffs cannot cause hindrance in the functioning of the Society on the basis of any nomination whatsoever. In the circumstances, there is no question for a decree of declaration or injunction against the defendant on the basis of so called nomination as far back as 23.4.1974. Another Suit No. 403 of 2003 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shahjahanpur against P. Rajagopalachari for decree of declaration against the plaintiff-respondents on the same ground as raised in the present revision, the court of Shahjahanpur vide order dated 15.12.2003, directed the parties to maintain status quo on the spot restraining them from raising construction and from transferring the mission property. A copy of the order of the court of Shahjahanpur has been annexed as Annexure-9. It has been submitted that the instant Application Nos. 2456C and 2457C moved in Original Suit No. 360 of 2000 is by way of a counterblast to another Suit No. 323 of 2003 instituted in the court of Vishakhapatnam filed against P. Rajagopalachari, Uma Shankar Bajpai, Gopal Rao Sagi and S. Ram Krishnan, in which Vishakhapatnam court restrained the plaintiff-respondents from creating any hindrance and disturbance in the function, which was scheduled for 22.11.2003 and 23.11.2003 as founder's day celebration at Vishakhapatnam. Next argument of the counsel for the revisionists is that since the applications were filed subsequent to the death of U. C. Saxena and as such it was not maintainable, for the reasons, the suit itself ceases to survive and no application to bring on record other defendants could be entertained by the courts below. Besides, counsel for parties. In the circumstances, I find that there is no illegality in allowing the impleadment application. The parties will have ample opportunity to put forth their claim which can be adequately decided in the suit but the same cannot be decided in the present revision, where only the order impleading the defendants and allowing the amendment application is under challenge. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor any factual error. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the impugned order has been passed exceeding the jurisdiction of the Court or with material irregularity. Besides, it is also noteworthy that the litigation pending in different Courts, be it Shahjahanpur. Chennai or Vishakhapatnam, all revolves round the solitary question as to who is the actual and real successor to the office of the President. Therefore, the court below did not exceed its power in permitting addition of parties nor can it be said that exercise of discretion was not sound. The question of addition of parties under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code rests entirely on the judicial discretion of the Court which has to be exercised taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the court below was of the view that the impleadment of the parties (revisionists) is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings besides on the question of jurisdiction, a finding was recorded that this objection stands decided up to the stage of the High Court and that the jurisdiction of a court is to be decided on the basis of plaint allegation. I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.
1