SREE RAMANADA ASRAM Vs. ASOKAN P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions arise for a decision in this Origin Petition :

(2.) Facts necessary for a decision of the above questions are: Petitioner-first defendant, is a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature coming under Section 92 of the Code. Two persons having obtained the leave of court instituted the suit under Section 92 of the Code. While so, one of the plaintiffs opted out of the suit and the other expired on 26.07.2009. Respondents filed I.A. No. 1134 of 2010 on 26.03.20 10 claiming to be persons having an interest in the trust and requesting that they be impleaded as additional plaintiffs in the suit. To that application, petitioner-trust, represented by its then Matathipathi, Maheswarananda Swami filed objection on 07.10.2010. Learned Additional Sub Judge, by the impugned order (Ext.P3) held that respondents could be impleaded as additional plaintiffs under Order 1 R.10(2)'of the Code. The said order is under challenge in this proceeding.

(3.) Shri O. Ramachandran Nambiar, the learned counsel for petitioner has contended that since of the two plaintiffs who were granted leave under Section 92 of the Code, one opted out and the other expired, there is no plaintiff surviving to sustain the suit. In that situation it was not open to the respondents to seek impleadment as additional plaintiffs either under Order 1 R. 10(2) or any other provision of the Code. It is contended that on the death of the surviving plaintiff, the suit abated and hence the question of impleadment of respondents does not arise. At any rate respondents are not persons having an interest in the trust (petitioner) as is evident from the counter statement filed by Maheswarananda Swami who was representing petitioner-trust where, he has contended that respondents have no interest in the trust. It is also contended by the learned counsel that though respondents claimed to be members of the Grihasthashishya Committee (resident deciples' Committee - for short, "the Committee"), Maheswarananda Swami had dissolved the said Committee on 8.8.2010. As such, respondents not being persons having an interest in the trust could not be impleaded as additional plaintiffs in the suit.