P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19073 of 2010(O)


1. P.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 68 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHRI.VASUDEVASHRAMAM,ARJUN HILL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHRI.HEMACHANDRAN, AGED 62,

3. N.P.GOULDAS, AGED 73,

4. K.SATHYAPAL, AGED 65,

5. M.K.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 73

6. K.RAMACHANDRAN VAIDYAR, AGED 82,

7. A.N.RUGMINI,AGED 71,

8. PROF.K.M.JAYARAJ,AGED 70,

9. K.K.S.NAMBIAR, AGED 80.

10. DR.P.RAMAN,AGED 60,

11. ARANGIL M.GOPINATHAN, AGED 62,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :09/07/2010

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                            --------------------------------------
                            W.P.(C) No.19073 of 2010
                            --------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order dated 06.04.2010 passed by

the learned Munsiff, Quilandy on I.A.No.44 of 2010 in O.S.No.88 of 2009.

Petitioner/plaintiff sued respondents for a declaration that meeting of

respondent No.1, Shri Vasudeva Ashramam Society (for short, “the society”)

held on 28.01.2009 is null and void and a decree for prohibitory injunction to

restrain respondent No.2/secretary of the society from convening the extra

ordinary general body meeting on 08.04.2009. Along with the suit petitioner filed

I.A.No.383 of 2009 for an order of temporary injunction against respondent No.2

convening the meeting on 08.04.2009. Learned Munsiff ordered notice to the

respondents and vide Ext.P3, order dated 06.04.2009 granted interim order of

injunction restraining respondent No.2 from convening the meeting on

08.04.2009 in violation of clause 11 of the memorandum (bye-law). It is the

case of petitioner that in violation of the said order respondent No.2 convened

meeting on 08.04.2009. Consequent to that, petitioner filed I.A.No.44 of 2010

(Ext.P4) for amendment of plaint to challenge validity of the meeting held on

08.04.2009 and seeking consequential reliefs. That application was opposed by

the respondents contending that there was no violation of the order of injunction

since meeting convened on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the

bye-law. Learned Munsiff vide Ext.P5, order dismissed Ext.P4, application

WP(C) No.19073/2010

2

holding that materials on record would show that meeting was convened in

accordance with clause 11 of bye-law and that amendment if allowed would

change the nature and character of the suit. That order is under challenge in this

Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that court below has gone

wrong in deciding upon merit of the amendment and holding at this stage that

meeting convened on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-

law. Learned counsel for respondents contend that there was no violation of

order of injunction in that as observed by the learned Munsiff, meeting was

convened in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-law. It is contended that

amendment sought for was not necessary for decision of the case and that

attempt of petitioner is to protract the proceeding. Learned counsel states that

the litigation involving respondent No.1 started as early as in the year 1994.

2. I have gone through the relevant records placed before me. It is

seen from Ext.P3 that there was an interim order of injunction restraining

respondent No.2 from convening meeting on 08.04.2009 in violation of clause

11 of the bye-law. Presently I am not at the question whether the meeting held

on 08.04.2009 violated the order of injunction. That is a matter to be decided

in other appropriate proceedings. It is not disputed and a reading of Ext.P4,

application also shows that amendment was sought for consequent to

convening the meeting on 08.04.2009. Petitioner wanted to challenge validity

of the said meeting and seek reliefs consequent to that. That is an event which

happened subsequent to the institution of suit and hence had to be brought into

WP(C) No.19073/2010

3

the plaint by amendment in case petitioner wanted to challenge it. Learned

Munsiff has proceeded on the basis that documents produced would reveal

that extra ordinary general body meeting held on 08.04.2009 was legal and it

was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-law and as such the suit itself

became infructuous. I am afraid, learned Munsiff was not correct in entering

such a finding while considering the application for amendment. Time and

again it was held that while considering an application for amendment, court has

not to look into the merit of the amendment sought for. What is required to be

considered is only whether amendment is required for a just disposal of the

case and to decide the controversy involved. I stated that what is sought to be

incorporated by the amendment is the subsequent event of respondent No.2

convening meeting on 08.04.2009. Questions whether meeting convened by

respondent No.2 on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-

law and whether petitioner will ultimately succeed on his allegations in the plaint

and to be incorporated by amendment are matters to be decided after trial.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am persuaded to

think that learned Munsiff was not correct on law or on facts in disallowing

prayer for amendment. Hence Ext.P5, order is liable to be set aside and I do so.

3. Learned counsel for respondents has expressed the apprehension

that a litigation which started in the year 1994 is likely to continue further.

Apprehension of respondents can be allayed by directing learned Munsiff to

expedite trial and disposal of the suit.

Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P5, order is set aside.

WP(C) No.19073/2010

4

Ext.P4, application is allowed. Petitioner shall carry out the amendment within

fourteen (14) days from this day or within such time as may be extended by the

learned Munsiff on application of petitioner. Learned Munsif shall expedite trial

and disposal of the suit.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *