{"id":70708,"date":"2009-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009"},"modified":"2014-06-27T15:48:15","modified_gmt":"2014-06-27T10:18:15","slug":"d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"D.Vedanayagam … Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
D.Vedanayagam … Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:15\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.R.P.(PD)MD.No.457 of 2009\nand\nC.R.P.(PD)MD.No.458 of 2009\nand\nM.P(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nC.R.P.(PD)MD.No.457 of 2009\n\nD.Vedanayagam\t\t... Revision Petitioner\/Petitioner\/Proposed 2nd Respondent\/<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    Proposed 2nd Defendant<\/p>\n
Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1.Raja\n<\/p>\n
2.Vedamanickam\t\t… Respondents 1 and 2\/Respondents 1 and 2\/Petitioners\/
\n\t\t\t    Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
3.Tirunelveli Diocese
\n  represented by its
\n  Bishop Rt.Rev.Jeyapaul David,
\n  No.5, Punithavathiar Street,
\n  Palayamkottai,
\n  Tirunelveli – 627 002…. 3rd Respondent\/3rd Respondent\/Respondent\/Defendant<\/p>\n
Prayer<\/p>\n
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
\nIndia, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal
\nDistrict Munsif, Tirunelveli, dated 08.12.2008 in I.A.No.1351 of 2008 in
\nI.A.No.630 of 2008 in O.S.No.351 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.458 of 2009<\/p>\n
D.Vedanayagam\t\t… Revision Petitioner\/Petitioner\/Proposed 2nd Defendant<\/p>\n
Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1.Raja\n<\/p>\n
2.Vedamanickam\t\t… Respondents 1 and 2\/Respondents 1 and 2\/Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
3.Tirunelveli Diocese
\n  represented by its
\n  Bishop Rt.Rev.Jeyapaul David,
\n  No.5, Punithavathiar Street,
\n  Palayamkottai,
\n  Tirunelveli – 627 002…. 3rd Respondent\/3rd Respondent\/Defendant<\/p>\n
Prayer<\/p>\n
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
\nIndia, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal
\nDistrict Munsif, Tirunelveli, dated 08.12.2008 in I.A.No.1352 of 2008 in
\nO.S.No.351 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner    ... Mr.P.Jayapaul\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.M.Vallinayagam\n\t\t       for R.1 and R.2\n\n* * * * *\n:COMMON ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe civil revision petitioner\/petitioner has filed  the C.R.P(PD)MD.No.457
\nof 2009 as against the order dated 08.12.2008 in I.A.No.1351 of 2008 in
\nI.A.No.630 of 2008 in O.S.No.351 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal
\nDistrict Munsif, Tirunelveli, in dismissing the application filed by the
\npetitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure, to implead him as the second respondent\/second defendant in
\nI.A.No.630 of 2008 in O.S.No.351 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. To avoid an avoidable delay, this Court dispenses with the issuance of
\nnotice to the third respondent in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The petitioner\/proposed defendant has filed the C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.458 of
\n2009 as against the order dated 08.12.2008 in I.A.No.1352 of 2008 in O.S.No.351
\nof 2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, in
\ndismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) and
\nSection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead him as the second
\ndefendant in O.S.No.351 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.Nos.1351 of 2008 and 1352
\nof 2008, has inter alia opined that the petitioner is neither necessary party
\nnor a proper party to the suit and resultantly, dismissed the said applications
\nwithout costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Aggrieved against the orders so passed by the trial Court in
\nI.A.Nos.1351 of 2008 and 1352 of 2008, the civil revision petitioner has
\nprojected the two civil revision petitions before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the
\nrevision petitioner has filed I.A.No.1352 of 2008 to implead him as the second
\ndefendant in the suit and also filed I.A.No.1351 of 2008 to implead him as a
\nparty in the injunction application in I.A.No.630 of 2008 in O.S.No.351 of 2008,
\nwhereby the respondents 1 and 2 sought to stall the appointments and transfers
\nof teaching and non-teaching staffs of the educational institutions of Diocese
\nand that the petitioner has been elected as a member of the Diocese of
\nTirunelveli and that he is the Secretary of the Standing Committee on higher
\neducation of the Diocesan institutions which deal with the appointments and
\ntransfers of teaching and non-teaching staffs, but the trial Court has passed a
\nnon-speaking order without application of mind and that the trial Court has not
\ntaken note of the fact that no election has been set aside and that the persons
\nelected have been competent to represent their interest and that since the
\nrevision petitioner is an aggrieved individual, he is a necessary and proper
\nparty to the suit and therefore, he prays for allowing the present civil
\nrevision petitions to prevent aberration of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the
\npetitioner is an elected office bearer and that he is a necessary party both in
\ninjunction application as well as in the suit and if an injunction order is
\npassed, then certainly it will affect him in the administration and in support
\nof his contention, he relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
\nBoard of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club<\/a> reported in AIR 2005
\nSUPREME COURT 592, at page 604, wherein it is held as follows:
\n\t“84. On 11th October, 2004, we had, after hearing the counsel for the
\nparties observed that if a situation arises this Court would go into the
\nvalidity of the election of the office-bearers of the Board held in the meeting
\ndated 29th September, 2004, but, as indicated hereinbefore, we did so under a
\nmistaken belief that the Board would be represented by the new office-bearers
\nand, thus, all parties would be before us.  However, it now stands admitted that
\nthe office-bearers either in their personal capacity or official capacity are
\nnot before us.  They may have notice of the pendency of this proceeding.  They
\nmay be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings of this Court.  But,
\nunless they are made parties in these proceedings, we would not be in a position
\nto entertain the dispute as regard validity of the meeting of 29th September,
\n2004 resulting in the election of the office-bearers.  Giving an opportunity of
\nhearing to the elected members in a dispute of this nature is imperative and not
\na matter of mere procedure, formality or technicality.  The election dispute,
\ntherefore, must be adjudicated upon by a proper forum.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8. He also cites the decision of this Court in P.R.Nallathambi v. Raghavan<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1973 MADRAS 25 at page 35, wherein it is among other things
\nobserved that ‘… Order I Rule 8, C.P.Code specially enables a party so
\nrepresented, if he so desires to come on record.  It would be a travesty of
\njustice to hold that a party who is bound by the result of a litigation, though
\nnot eo nomine a party to the litigation, shall be denied an opportunity to draw
\nthe attention of the Court to some step, which seeks to prejudice his interests
\nbehind his back.  In all such cases, it is the plain duty of the court to
\nimplead the parties concerned either under Order I, Rule 10, or in exercise of
\nits undoubted, inherent power under Section 151, C.P.Code.’<\/p>\n
\t9. Further, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner presses into
\nservice the decision of this Court in Krishnan, S. v. Rathinavel Naicker<\/a>
\nreported in 2007(2) CTC 73 at page 76, wherein it is held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“15. A party can also be impleaded when the relief prayed for in the
\nproceedings is sought to be made binding on him or when it is felt that he would
\nbe adversely affected by the ultimate outcome of the proceedings.  But in this
\ncase no relief is sought against the proposed respondents and the relief prayed
\nfor is also not intended to be made binding on them.  It is not even the case of
\nthe 1st respondent that the outcome of the proceedings would adversely affect
\nthe interests of the proposed respondents.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, in paragraph No.17, at page 77, it is observed as follows:
\n\t“17. In a nut shell, the tests to be applied for determining the right of
\na party to implead another, in a pending Suit or other proceeding, may be
\ncrystallized into the following categories:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) If without his presence no effective and complete adjudication could
\nbe made;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) If his presence is necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication
\nof the dispute though no relief is claimed against him;\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) If there is a cause of action against him;\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) If the relief sought in the Suit or other proceedings is likely to be
\nmade binding on him;\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) If the ultimate outcome of the proceedings is likely affect him
\nadversely;\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) If his role is really that of a necessary witness but is sought to be
\ncamouflaged as a Necessary party;\n<\/p>\n
If a party to a litigation satisfies the Court that the person sought to be
\nimpleaded, passes any one or more of the above tests, then he is entitled to get
\nthe discretion of the Court exercised in his favour.  The above tests are not
\nexhaustive and at times, even if a person falls under any one of the above
\ncategories, the Court may refuse to implead him.  To quote an example, a
\nsubsequent purchaser of a property, which forms the subject matter of the Suit,
\nmay satisfy the tests (d) and (e) above mentioned and yet the Court may decline
\nto implead him on the basis of the doctrine of lis pendens.  Therefore the above
\nlist is only a broad statement of the principles that could be culled out from
\njudicial precedents.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. He also brings it to the notice of this Court the decision of the
\nHonourable Supreme Court in V.J.Thomas v. Pathrose Abraham<\/a> reported in AIR 2008
\nSUPREME COURT 1503 at page 1504, wherein it is observed as follows:
\n\t“14. A litigant may execute a decree which was obtained for the benefit of
\nthe people of the locality but if he intends to execute a decree which was
\nobtained for his own benefit, those who would be affected thereby should
\nordinarily be made parties to the suit.  Similarly, if a village pathway is the
\nsubject matter of the suit on the premise that it is the personal property of
\nthe plaintiff, those who use the said pathway or at least have lands adjacent
\nthereto should ordinarily be impleaded as parties.  In the latter case, like the
\npresent one, applying the legal principles, as noticed hereinbefore, we are of
\nthe opinion that a decree which has been obtained by suppression of fact or
\ncollusively would not be executable against those who were not parties to the
\nsuit.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Added further, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner places
\nreliance on the decision of this Court in C.Shanmugam v. N.Radhakrishnan and
\nothers<\/a> reported in 1999 (1) CTC 542 at page 543, wherein it is held thus:
\n\t“7. It is true that even without the petitioner, the suit could be
\nentertained since the question to be decided in the suit is whether the
\nResolution dated 3.7.1998 is valid or not.  On that date, the petitioner did not
\nhave any interest.  It is only consequent to the vacancy that arose due to
\nsuspension of the plaintiff and a Resolution had to be passed on 6.7.98 whereby
\nthe present petitioner has been co-opted.  It is therefore clear that the
\npetitioner is a person who is interested in the result of the suit and who will
\nalso be affected by the decision.  Eventhough, the suit could be decided without
\nhim, he being the affected person, is entitled to come on record.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. He further invites the attention of this Court to the decision of this
\nCourt in  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore v. A.Krishnan<\/a> reported in 1997
\n(1) CTC 116, at page 126, wherein it is inter alia held that ‘…  The courts
\nbelow, in my view, over-simplified the matter by observing that the plaintiff is
\nseeking for a declaration of his rights.  As could be seen from the plaintiff’s
\naverments, the specific case is that by virtue of the defective manner of
\nimplementation of the agreement entered into under section 18(1) of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, juniors of the plaintiff have stolen a march over the
\nplaintiff and derived undue benefits to the detriment of the plaintiff and that
\nbeing the position, if the relief has to be granted and in this case actually
\nhas been granted by the court below, necessarily the other parties, who were
\nsaid to be nearly 42 in number as per the claim of the defendant\/appellant
\nprojected even before the trial Court, will be seriously and adversely affected.
\nSuch parties are therefore necessary and proper parties to the proceedings
\nbefore the Court.  This is not a case where any validity of rule or a statutory
\nprovision is alone being challenged, in which case only an exception had been
\nmade that individual workers or employees or officers who may be affected need
\nnot necessarily be made parties, but in a case of the nature where no such claim
\nwas involved and the very claim is competing claim of seniority and rights,
\nbased on such claim of seniority, inter se between various workers the other
\nworkers, who, according to the plaintiff, have undeservedly stolen a march over
\nthe plaintiff in the matter of seniority and further promotions, ought to have
\nbeen necessarily made parties to the suit and their absence renders the suit
\nitself bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  On this ground also, the suit
\nought to have been dismissed.’<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner draws the attention of
\nthis Court to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh
\nv. Shivnath Mishra<\/a> alias Gadasa Guru reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases
\n147 at page 149, wherein it is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7. By operation of the above-quoted rule though the court may have power
\nto strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on
\napplication or without application of either party, but the condition precedent
\nis that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added,
\nwould be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely
\nadjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.  To bring a
\nperson as party-defendant is not a substantive right but one of procedure and
\nthe court has discretion in its proper exercise.  The object of the rule is to
\nbring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the
\nsubject-matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the
\nsame time without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The question is whether the person who has got his interest in the
\nproperty declared by an independent decree but not a party to the agreement of
\nsale, is a necessary and proper party to effectually and completely adjudicate
\nupon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.  The question before the
\ncourt in a suit for the specific performance is whether the vendor had executed
\nthe document and whether the conditions prescribed in the provisions of the
\nSpecific Relief Act have been complied with for granting the relief of specific
\nperformance.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Yet another decision of this Court in  Kaliammal v. Karuppan and
\nothers<\/a> reported in (2001) 1 M.L.J 22 at page 25, is relied on by the learned
\nCounsel for the revision petitioner wherein it is laid down as under:
\n\t“20. The object of O.1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C is to bring about before the
\ncourt at the same time all the persons who are parties to dispute relating to
\nthe subject-matter  so that the dispute may be determined at the same time
\nwithout any delay or inconvenience and expenses of separate actions and trials.
\nBy reason of such a power, the court places itself in a position of being able
\nto effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
\ninvolved in the suit.  However, this provision is subject to the other
\nprovisions including Sec.21 of the Limitation Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15. He also cites the decision of this Court in K.Raghupathy v.
\nK.R.Panneerselvam<\/a> reported in 2008 (4) TLNJ 215 (Civil) wherein it is held that
\n‘necessary parties are persons necessary to constitution of suit without whom
\ndecree can not be passed and there must be a right to some relief against in
\nrespect of matter involved in the suit.’<\/p>\n
\t16. He further relies on the decision of this Court in  V.Ravi @ P.V.Ravi
\nv. V.Balakrishnan and<\/a> 10 others reported in 2009(1) CTC 411  wherein it is
\nobserved that ‘… It is well settled principles of law that Court has wide co-
\nextensive power to implead any person at any stage of Suit as necessary party to
\nenable Court to effectively adjudicate questions involved in Suit and for
\nexercise of such power, Court has to come to a finding that a party is a
\nnecessary party and party should not to be added as defendants merely because
\nthey will be affected by orders of Court incidentally and proper question to be
\naddressed by Court is whether right of persons may be affected if they are not
\narrayed as parties and only reason which makes him a necessary party to an
\naction is that he should be bound by result of action and question to be settled
\nmust be question which cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he is
\na party to case.’<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relies on the order of
\nthis Court dated 18.08.2008 in C.R.P(PD)Nos.2527 to 2529 of 2008 and
\nC.R.P(PD)Nos.2601 of 2602 of 2008 [in which the third respondent (in
\nC.R.P(PD)MD.Nos.457 and 458 of 2009) has figured as the revision petitioner in
\nC.R.P(PD)Nos.2527 to 2529 of 2008] wherein at paragraphs 13 and 14, it is
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“13. Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for
\nMr.N.S.Nanda Kumar for the revision petitioners in CRP (PD) Nos.2601 and 2602 of
\n2008, submitted that the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India are legally maintainable, since they are aggrieved persons
\nof the impugned orders, but were not made as parties, though the respondents \/
\nplaintiffs have raised specific allegations against them in the plaint, however,
\nwithout impleading them as parties to the suit, behind their back the
\nrespondents \/ plaintiffs have obtained the impugned orders against the revision
\npetitioners herein, by adopting method of forum shopping, which is a clear abuse
\nof process of court and therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the
\naforesaid petitioners, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
\nlegally maintainable.  The learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned
\norders have been passed without jurisdiction by the court below and without
\nimpleading necessary parties, hence, the revision petitions in C.R.P(PD)Nos.2601
\nand 2602 of 2008 have been preferred.  It was further contended that the
\nrevision petitions have independent rights and they do not claim any right
\nthrough the other revision petitioner, namely the Diocese of Tirunelveli (CSI)
\nrepresented by its Bishop, the second respondent herein and second defendant in
\nthe suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. According to the learned Senior Counsel, by the earlier order, dated
\n30.04.2008 made in I.A.No.6990 of 2008, the court below had directed both the
\nparties to the suit to maintain status quo and therefore, factually, there was
\nno grievance for the revision petitioners, since the revision petitioners have
\nbeen elected and holding their respective posts, though they were not impleaded
\nas necessary parties.  However, without any basis, the court below has exceeded
\nits jurisdiction and passed the impugned order, dated 21.07.2008 in I.A.No.9666
\nof 2008 against law and adverse to the rights and interest of the revision
\npetitioners, by directing the parties to maintain status quo ante prior to
\n21.12.2007 and that the order has been passed, even without impleading necessary
\nparties, namely the revision petitioners in C.R.P(PD)Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008.
\nOnly after knowing the adverse order passed against them, they preferred the
\nrevision petitions, after obtaining leave from this Court.  According to the
\nlearned Senior Counsel, the only remedy available for the petitioners is filing
\nthe revision petitions by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  It
\nwas further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents\/
\nplaintiffs have raised specific allegations against the revision petitioners in
\ntheir plaint itself at paragraph number 12, however, they were not arrayed as
\nrespondents\/defendants in the suit.  Suppressing the material facts, that there
\nare similar suits filed and pending before various courts in Tirunelveli
\nDistrict and without impleading the necessary parties, by merely impleading the
\nfirst respondent at Chennai, who was nothing to do with the election dispute
\nfiled the suit in the City Civil Court, Chennai and have obtained the impugned
\norders from the court below, which has no jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, he also places reliance on the observation made in paragraph No.45 of
\nthe aforesaid order passed in the above Civil Revision Petitions which runs
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“45. There is deliberate suppression of material facts by the
\nrespondents\/plaintiffs, apart from forum shopping and a total contradictory plea
\nfor the alleged cause of action to file the suit, which leads to the inference
\nof fraud being played on the court below by the respondents\/plaintiffs.  The
\nimpugned orders have been passed against the revision petitioners in
\nC.R.P.Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008, though specific allegations were raised against
\nthem by the respondent\/plaintiffs in the plaint, but, without impleading them as
\nnecessary parties, behind their back, hence, the order is affected by non-
\njoinder of necessary parties.  There are materials available to show forum
\nshopping.  In the light of the decisions referred to above, I am of the view
\nthat the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the court below in I.A.No.6990 of
\n2008 and I.A.No.9666 of 2008 are expacie illegal and without jurisdiction and
\nfraud has been played on the part of the court below and therefore the affected
\nparties can maintain the revision petition by invoking Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India, which is not legally precluded on the facts and
\ncircumstances of this case.  Therefore, the revision petitions in
\nC.R.P(PD)Nos.2529, 2601 and 2602 of 2008 are allowed and the impugned order,
\ndated 30.04.2008 and subsequent order dated 21.07.2008 passed in I.A.No.9666 of
\n2008 granting status quo ante on the date prior to 21.12.2007 are set aside.  I
\nam of the considered view that Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Constitution of Diocese
\nof Tirunelveli is not applicable on the facts and circumstances, directing the
\nparties to maintain status quo, prior to 21.12.2007.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, submits
\nthat the present suit in O.S.No.351 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal
\nDistrict Munsif, Tirunelveli, is not a suit questioning any election already
\nheld and that earlier, the plaintiff in O.S.No.194 of 2007 on the file of the
\nlearned District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, has filed a suit in a representative
\ncapacity praying for the relief of declaration that elections held to the
\npastoral Committees, Church Councils and Diocesan Council of the first defendant
\nDiocese held on 07.10.2007, 12.10.2007 and 20.10.2007 are null and void non-est
\nand not binding on the members of the first defendant Diocese and for appointing
\na Commissioner \/ Election Committee to conduct fresh elections to the Pastorate
\nCommittee, Church Councils, Diocesan Council, Executive Committees, Sub-
\nCommittees, Office of Lay Secretary, Clerical Secretary and Vice Chairman of the
\nfirst defendant Diocese and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants
\n1 to 3, their men or agents from conducting any elections including the election
\nto the Executive Committee, Sub-Committee, Office of Lay Secretary, Vice
\nChairman and Clerical Secretary of the first defendant Diocese and for permanent
\ninjunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men or agents from giving
\neffect to new appointments of correspondents to St.John’s College, Sarah Tucker
\nCollege, St.John’s Hr.Sec.School, Cathedral Hr. Sec. School, Florence Swaignson
\nDeaf and Dumb Hr. Sec. School, Sarah Tucker Teacher Training Institute of the
\nfirst defendant Diocese and that in I.A.No.739 of 2007 in O.S.No.194 of 2007, on
\n30.11.2007, an order has been passed by the learned Additional District Munsif,
\nNanguneri, vacating the interim stay order dated 06.11.2007 and has issued the
\nfollowing directions:\n<\/p>\n
\t“1. There is no bar to conduct the next chain of election process which
\nhas to be completed and the elected representatives have to be sent to Synod as
\nper the schedule by permitting the undisputed elected members  (members from
\nundisputed election of Pastorate Committees and Diocesan Council) to exercise
\ntheir voting rights as per the provisions provided under the Constitution of
\nDiocese of Tirunelveli in further elections. The respondents are directed to
\ncomplete all the election process as early as possible.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. In respect of the disputed election for the Pastorate Committees as
\nwell as for the Diocesan Council Member from Nanguneri, Parapadi, Donavour and
\nother places and in respect of diocesan member elections disputes, the
\npetitioner has to submit representations before the election tribunal of Diocese
\nof Tirunelveli with all the relevant material evidence referred in the affidavit
\nwithin one month from the date of the order passed by this Court.  The
\nrespondent should consider the representation of the petition’s within two weeks
\nfrom the date of receipt of the representation and pass a speaking order based
\non the merits of the representation placed before it.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In respect of the alleged violations about the election of Diocesan
\nworkers in various places, the petitioner should raise their dispute before the
\nelection tribunal of the Diocese within one month from the date of this order
\nand the election tribunal has to decide the violations after hearing all the
\nconcerned parties and pass a speaking order.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. In respect of 6 newly appointed Correspondents and employees under the
\ndiocesan have not right to participate the present election process and they can
\ncast their voting right if any for the election coming from the next turn.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The above such direction is not applicable to any case is pending any
\nother courts in respect of election disputes.”\n<\/p>\n
and on the basis of this order, the further elections have been held and a third
\nparty has filed the C.R.P.No.1764 of 2007 before this Court and the same has
\nbeen allowed on 14.12.2007 setting aside the order passed by the learned
\nAdditional District Munsif, Nanguneri, in I.A.No.739 of 2007 in O.S.No.194 of
\n2007 dated 30.11.2007 and that any person claiming right that he has been
\nelected by virtue of the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif,
\nNanguneri, in I.A.No.739 of 2007 in O.S.No.194 of 2007 dated 30.11.2007 must go
\nand hence, the respondents 1 and 2 (in C.R.P(PD)MD.Nos.457 and 458 of 2009) have
\nfiled O.S.No.351 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif,
\nTirunelveli, praying for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the
\ndefendant and his men and agents to hold further chain of elections to the
\nChurch Councils, Diocesan Councils, recognizing the voting rights of the
\nrepresentative of the Pastorate Committee throughout the Diocese including
\nParapadi Pastorate as per the bye-law and for prohibitory  permanent injunction
\nrestraining the defendant and his men and agents from appointing, transferring
\nany Pastor in the Diocese, teaching and non-teaching staff in the educational
\ninstitution including Parapadi Pastorate without properly forming the respective
\ncommittees as per bye-law and that the revision petitioner claims that he has
\nbeen elected in pursuance of the order passed in I.A.No.739 of 2007 in
\nO.S.No.194 of 2007 dated 30.11.2007 and that he is not a necessary party in
\nI.A.Nos.1351 and 1352 of 2008 and that the trial Court has exercised its
\ndiscretion in refusing to allow the said I.A.Nos.1351 and 1352 of 2008 and that
\nthe order passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.1351 and 1352 of 2008 are a
\nreasoned one and that they need not be interfered with by this Court at this
\nstage.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Continuing further, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2
\nsubmits that the respondents 1 and 2 herein are not parties in
\nC.R.P.(PD)Nos.2527 to 2529 of 2007.  It is significant to make a mention that
\nthe civil revision petitioner in C.R.P(PD)MD.Nos.457 and 458 of 2009 has figured
\nas the fourth petitioner in C.R.P(PD)Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 brings it to
\nthe notice of this Court that in I.A.No.629 of 2008 (filed under Order I Rule 8
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure), in O.S.No.351 of 2008, the Bishop has been
\npermitted to represent all the members of the Diocese.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, relies on the
\ndecision of this Court in  A.Shanmuga Sundara Pandia Nadar and another v.
\nP.S.R.Vivekanandan and others reported in 1991 (1) MLJ 105, at page 110, wherein
\nit is inter alia observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“14. Learned Counsel for the third respondent raised a preliminary
\nobjection as to the maintainability of the application in the court below as
\nwell as this revision petition in this Court.  According to the learned Counsel
\nfor the third respondent, the application in the court below was vitiated by
\nnon-joinder of necessary parties, viz., the Commissioner and the newly elected
\nmembers of the Administrative Council.  According to him, the application before
\nthe court below to declare the election as null and void was akin to an election
\npetition under the Representation of People Act, the Panchayats Act or the
\nDistrict Municipalities Act and without impleading the successful candidates,
\nthe petition was wholly unsustainable.  It was argued that the impleading of the
\nCommissioner as a party to the Revision Petition would not improve the situation
\nand the non-joinder of the successful candidates in the revision petition would
\nbe sufficient to dismiss the same as not maintainable.  On the merits, learned
\nCounsel for the third respondent contended that the Commissioner was entitled to
\nignore the order of injunction granted by Sub Court, Madurai as it was null and
\nvoid.  According to him, the election was being held in pursuance of the terms
\nof the compromise decree and in accordance with the directions given by the Sub
\nCourt, Tirunelveli, and no member of the Sangam was entitled to approach any
\nother Court for injunction and the entire proceeding was mala fide and an abuse
\nof process of Court.  He has also stated that the proceedings in the other
\ncourts were really engineered by the petitioners herein, who are keen on
\nclinging on to the office as long as possible.  Learned counsel for the third
\nrespondent also submitted that the Commissioner was right in rejecting the claim
\nmade by the 278 members as trader members.  Thus, learned counsel contended that
\nthe order of the court below is unassailable in having accepted the contention
\nput forward by the respondents.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. He also cites the decision in  Tansukhlal and 4 others v. Smt.Vinita
\nand 8 others reported in 2000(II) CLT 27 wherein it is held that ‘the trial
\nCourt should be left with discretion to come to conclusion as to which is
\nnecessary party to be impleaded in suit for finding out truth for adjudication
\nof issues in controversy, without eclipsing its jurisdiction on anticipation of
\naverments and by addition of parties not compulsively necessary, there is
\npossibility of widening of dimensions of issues in controversy which may give
\nrise to the multiplication of issues to be adjudicated.’<\/p>\n
\t23. Another decision of this Court in Antony Devaraj and another v.
\nAralvaimozhi (Kurusadi) Devasahayam Mount Oor and Thuya Viagula, Annai Church,
\nrep. by the Trustee and others reported in 2004(2) CTC 183 is relied on the side
\nof the respondents 1 and 2, wherein the guidelines in regard to the application
\nof Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure have been summarized as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(a) Plaintiff may choose to implead only persons against whom he wishes
\nto proceed with and Court may add any other party if such party is necessary
\nparty to enable Court to effectually and completely adjudicate questions
\ninvolved in suit; (b) Necessary party is one without whom no order can be
\neffectively made and proper party is one whose presence is necessary for
\ncomplete and final decision of question involved in proceedings; (c) Person to
\nbe added as party must be one whose presence is necessary as party and he had
\nrelevant evidence to give on some questions involved and he becomes necessary
\nwitness; (d) Third party cannot be considered necessary party for deciding main
\nissue framed in suit; (e) Court can suo moto in fit case implead new party as
\ndefendant but Court cannot implead person who is neither necessary nor proper
\nparty; (f) If question in issue between parties can be worked out without anyone
\nelse being brought in strangers should not be added as party; (g) Plaintiff is
\ndominus litis and he is best Judge of his own interest and it should be left to
\nhim to choose his opponents; (h) Person need not be added merely because he or
\nshe would be incidentally affected by judgment; (i) Persons whose interest would
\nbe affected by litigation or entitled to come on record to protect their
\ninterest when such interest are jeopardized by person already on record and
\npersons who sought to be impleaded in their capacity as former office bearers
\ncannot sustain their application as suit already filed is representative
\nproceedings and in interest of Oor committee and Village.”\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 also cites
\nthe decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra
\nPanigrahi and<\/a> another reported in 1996(3) SCR 24 wherein it is laid down thus:
\n\t“The principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a
\ndecree the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the
\nbenefit of the erroneous decree to make restitution to the other party for what
\nhe has lost.  The Court in making restitution is bound to restore the parties so
\nfar as they can be restored to the same position they were in at the time when
\nthe Court by its erroneous action had displaced them from.”\n<\/p>\n
\t25. He further presses into service the decision of this Court in All
\nIndia Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State Election Commissioner<\/a> reported in
\n2007(1) CTC 705 at page 837, wherein at paragraph No.252, it is held as follows:
\n\t“252. A submission was made on behalf of the respondents that in the
\nabsence of all the candidates, and particularly the successful candidates, such
\nelection could not have been set aside in respect of all the wards.  The
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara
\nManagement Committee,<\/a> 2006 (8) SCC 487, has been relied upon in support of the
\ncontention that in the absence of elected representatives, no such dispute
\nshould be decided.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn my considered and humble opinion, the ratio of the said decision may
\nnot be applicable to the peculiar facts  situation of the present case.  All the
\nWrit Petitions had been filed as public interest litigations.  It is of course
\ntrue that five of the Writ Petitions were filed by the political parties whose
\ncandidates were contesting in the election.  However, other petitions had been
\nfiled either by the candidates or even citizens who cherish democratic value.  A
\nfree and fair election has been held to be a basic principle of democracy and
\ndemocracy is considered to be a basic structure of the Constitution.  The
\npurport of the petitions was to ensure free and fair poll.  The duty was upon
\nthe Election Commission and other officials to ensure such free and fair poll.
\nSuch officials were before the Court.  All the Writ Petitions had been filed at
\na stage when results were yet to be announced. These public interest litigations
\ncannot be equated with Election Petitions under the statutory provisions, which
\nrequire that all candidates should be impleaded.  At the time when the petitions
\nwere filed counting had not begun.  Subsequently when counting was permitted to
\nbe undertaken, it was specifically indicated that declaration of results would
\nbe subject to the decision in the Writ Petitions.  In fact under a specific
\ndirection of this Court, in the certificates in favour of the successful
\ncandidates, it has been so indicated.  Therefore, all the successful candidates
\nknew that their election as Councillors was in peril being subject to the result
\nof the Writ Petitions.  Keeping in view the peculiar nature of the case and the
\nmain purpose of filing the public interest litigations which was to ensure free
\nand fair election, it cannot be said that in the absence of the candidates or
\neven the successful candidates, the Writ Petitions were hit by the principle of
\nnon-joinder of necessary parties.”\n<\/p>\n
\t26. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner
\ncontends that the relief sought for in the suit in O.S.No.351 of 2008 on the
\nfile of the learned District Munsif, Tirunelveli, by the respondents 1 and
\n2\/plaintiffs is likely to be made binding on the revision petitioner and that
\nthe ultimate outcome of the suit proceedings will likely affect the revision
\npetitioner and therefore, he is not only a proper but also a necessary party to
\nthe suit in O.S.No.351 of 2008 as well as in the injunction application in
\nI.A.No.630 of 2008 in O.S.No.351 of 2008 and therefore, the civil revision
\npetition has to be allowed in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. It is to be borne in mind that where complete and effective relief can
\nbe obtained by a litigant, then it is not necessary to join any other party, in
\nthe considered opinion of this Court.  It is needless to say that a necessary
\nparty is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is
\none in whose absence, an effective order can be made, but whose presence is
\nnecessary for complete and final decision of the question involved in the
\nproceeding.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. In reality, the respondents 1 and 2\/plaintiffs being the dominant lite
\ncannot be directed to implead the persons against whom no relief is sought for
\nin the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. As far as the present case is concerned, since the order issuing
\ndirections in I.A.No.739 of 2007 in O.S.No.194 of 2007 dated 30.11.2007, passed
\nby the learned Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri, has been set aside by this
\nCourt in C.R.P.No.1764 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007, the subsequent election which
\nhas been conducted is only a non-est in the eye of law and (as a matter of
\nprudence, one cannot brush aside an important fact that the revision petitioner
\nclaims only to have been elected in pursuance of the order in I.A.No.739 of 2007
\nin O.S.No.194 of 2007) and that the parties are relegated to original position
\nas on the date of filing of the suit in O.S.No.194 of 2007 and inasmuch as
\nI.A.No.629 of 2008 in O.S.No.351 of 2008 filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code
\nof Civil Procedure has been allowed by the trial court whereby, the Bishop has
\nbeen permitted to represent all the members of the Diocese, this Court is of the
\nconsidered view that the revision petitioner is not a proper and necessary party
\nand moreover, the revision petitioner cannot be added as a party merely because
\nhe will be affected by the judgment or orders of the Court incidentally and
\nindeed, the revision petitioner has no enforceable legal right and that even in
\nthe absence of the revision petitioner, the trial Court can effectively
\nadjudicate upon the controversies\/disputes involved in the suit and in that view
\nof the matter, the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial Court in
\nrefusing to allow the said I.A.Nos.1351 and 1352 of 2008 cannot be found fault
\nwith and consequently, the present Civil Revision Petitions fail and the same
\nare hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Resultantly,
\nthe connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court D.Vedanayagam … Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:15\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.457 of 2009 and C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.458 of 2009 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009 C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.457 of 2009 D.Vedanayagam … Revision Petitioner\/Petitioner\/Proposed 2nd Respondent\/ Proposed 2nd Defendant Vs. 1.Raja 2.Vedamanickam … Respondents 1 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nD.Vedanayagam ... Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.Vedanayagam ... Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-27T10:18:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.Vedanayagam … Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-27T10:18:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6463,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009\",\"name\":\"D.Vedanayagam ... Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-27T10:18:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.Vedanayagam … Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.Vedanayagam ... Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.Vedanayagam ... Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-27T10:18:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.Vedanayagam … Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-27T10:18:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009"},"wordCount":6463,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009","name":"D.Vedanayagam ... Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-27T10:18:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-vedanayagam-revision-vs-raja-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.Vedanayagam … Revision vs Raja on 15 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}