High Court Kerala High Court

S. Suresh Raj vs M/S. Sree Dharma Shastha on 14 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
S. Suresh Raj vs M/S. Sree Dharma Shastha on 14 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 314 of 2009()



1. S. SURESH RAJ
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. M/S. SREE DHARMA SHASTHA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :14/01/2010

 O R D E R
                           A.K. BASHEER &
                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       F.A.O. No. 314 of 2009
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

Appellants are the petitioners in an Original Petition

filed under Section 25 of the Travancore Cochin Literary

Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955

on the file of the District Court, Kollam. The prayer in the

Original Petition is to remove the existing Governing

Body of Respondent No.1 Society and to appoint a fresh

Governing Body and also to frame a scheme for the better

and efficient management of the first respondent Society

and other incidental reliefs.

2. During the pendency of the above Original

Petition, the appellants moved an application under Order

F.A.O. No. 314 of 2009

2

XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for

appointment of a Receiver for the management of the affairs of

the Society by removing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from the

management.

3. The court below, after considering the rival

contentions, held that this is not a fit case, where a Receiver is to

be appointed as suggested by the appellants. The said order is

impugned in this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the materials available on record.

5. Having perused the impugned order, we are not

satisfied that any interference is warranted with the order under

challenge. We have been informed that pleadings are complete

in the Original Petition. In the peculiar facts and circumstances

of this case, we are of the view that the court below has to be

directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the Original Petition.

We do so.

F.A.O. No. 314 of 2009

3

6. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to

the court below to dispose of the Original Petition as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before closure of the

courts for summer recess.

(A.K. BASHEER)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm