T.R. Subramania Naidu vs Dr. Ambedkar People Liberation on 28 September, 2005

0
85
Madras High Court
T.R. Subramania Naidu vs Dr. Ambedkar People Liberation on 28 September, 2005
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

DATED: 28/09/2005  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN          

C.R.P. (PD) No. 1240 of 2004 
and 
C.M.P. No. 12114 of 2004 

T.R. Subramania Naidu                          ... Petitioner

-Vs-

Dr. Ambedkar People Liberation 
 Front, Arakkonam 
rep. by its representative
 K. Manoharan 
Paneerselvam Street 
Dr. Ambedkar Street 
Arakkonam  
Vellore District                                ... Respondent


        Petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of  India  against  the
order dated 06-04-2004 made in  I.A.    No.   680 of 2003 in O.S.  No.  152 of
2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District.


!For Petitioner         :       Mr.  D.  Rajendran

^For Respondent         :       No appearance

:ORDER  

The defendant in O.S. No. 152 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif
Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District is the revision petitioner. The respondent
herein has filed the said suit for bare injunction. Pending suit, the person
representing the respondent herein has filed I.A. No. 680 of 2003 under
Order I Rule 8 CPC to permit him to file the suit in a representative
capacity. The trial court, after hearing both sides allowed the said
application, hence, the present civil revision petition.

2. By order dated 16-04-2005, this Court appointed Mrs. Shantha
Kumari, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae in this matter to assist this Court
to dispose of this revision petition.

3. Though the respondent was served and their name is printed in
the cause list today, none represents them.

4. Mr. D. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner submits that before the trial court, the respondent herein has
marked exhibits P1 to P21, but not let in any oral evidence; that all the said
exhibits do not disclose that the person representing the respondent was a
member of the plaintiff association or office bearer or he is holding any
interest in the suit property, but the trial court ordered the said
application permitting the person representing the respondent herein to
prosecute the suit on behalf of the respondent, which is contrary to Order I
Rule 8 CPC and prayed to set aside the order impugned in this petition.

5. Mrs. Shantha Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this
Court, on careful perusal of all the documents and also the impugned order
submitted that the respondent’s association is not a registered association or
the person who sought permission to represent was neither a member nor an
officer bearer and his interest in the suit property is not shown.

6. Order I Rule 8 CPC is in the public interest so as to avoid
multiplicity of litigation. The conditions necessary for filing an
application under this provision is that the person, on whose behalf the suit
is brought must have the same interest i.e., either the interest must be
common or they must have common grievance. The object is really to facilitate
the decisions of questions in which large number of persons are interested
without recourse to ordinary procedure.

7. It is seen from the records that the exhibits relied on by the
respondent herein do not satisfy the said conditions. If a person has not
satisfied the conditions, in other words, not having any interest in the
property or right to represent the body, which filed the suit, cannot be
permitted to sue on behalf of others, who has a right. The trial court,
though rightly discussed about the exhibits and held that the person
representing the respondent has no interest, while coming to conclusion, it
took a different and erroneous view that the person representing the
respondent is eligible to represent, which is nothing but non-application of
mind. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the order impugned in
this revision petition and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently,
I.A. No. 680 of 2003 in O.S. No. 152 of 2003 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District is dismissed.

7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.

rsh

Index : Yes
Website : Yes

To

The District Munsif
District Munsif Court
Arakkonam
Vellore District

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *