EZHUTHACHAN NATIONAL ACADEMY Vs. R. GOPINATHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.P.No.908 of 2018 arises from O.P(C).No.1173 of 2018 and R.P.No.909 of 2018 arises from C.R.P.No.315 of 2018 both seeking review of

(2.) The revision petition and the original petition (Civil) arise from O.P.No.605 of 2017 of first Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram filed under section 25 of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. That was filed by the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 in O.P.No.605 of 2017. Respondent Nos.1 to 10 in the original petition and the C.R.P. are the petitioners in O.P.No.605 of 2017 of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and the respondents as per their status in O.P.No.605 of 2017.

(3.) Petitioners in O.P.No.605 of 2017 are the members of the Ezhuthachan National Academy which is a society registered under the T.C Act. Petitioners filed the above original petition with a prayer to frame a scheme for the society and to appoint a new governing body. Respondents were the society and its office bearers. There is an allegation that, respondents did not conduct the general body meeting and did not submit the statement of accounts within time and that, the society was being mismanaged. In answer to the allegations, respondents appeared before the court below and contested the proceedings. Pending the proceedings, petitioners filed I.A.No.322 of 2018 with a prayer to restrain the 6th respondent from acting as the office bearer of the society. It was alleged that, she was not even a member of the above society and was only the wife of the former Secretary of the society. It was alleged that, other office bearers had manipulated the records to induct her as a member of the society. Respondents filed I.A.No.711 of 2018 challenging the maintainability of the above original petition. It was contended that, in the original petition, there was no specific averment or allegation to frame a new scheme and they did not even demonstrate any reason as to why a new scheme was liable to be framed when the society was governed by a byelaw. It was further contended that the allegations were vague.