VICTORIA EDWARD HALL Vs. M SAMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/lst defendant as revision petitioner against the order and decretal order dated 12.2.2001 and made in I.A.No.87 of 2001 in O.S.No.37 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.

(2.) THE facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil revision petition are as follows:- THE revision petitioner is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, herein after referred to as the Act. THE Secretary and Executive Committee Members of the said Society will be elected for a period of one year by the General Body of the revision petitioner society. THEre are 1496 members in the revision petitioner society and in the election held on 30.7.2000 one I. Ismail was elected as Secretary of the said society. THE respondents 2 to 6 and Thiruvalargal P. Sudalai, Gnanavel and Diraviyam were elected as members of the Executive Committee of the said society. THE sub-rule in the bye law of the said society which prohibits admission of members outside the city of Madurai, was cancelled in the General Body Meeting held on 31.3.1996. THE 1st respondent who is the counsel for one R. Thangammal, her husband Rajangam and advocates A.K. Ramasamy and Sethurathinam requested the revision petitioner to renew the licence to the above said R. Thangammal to run a cinema theatre in Madurai and the request was not accepted by the revision petitioner society. By making use of the 1st respondent herein a suit was filed seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction, etc., against the revision petitioner society and its Secretary and Executive Committee Members in O.S.No.37 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. Since 1400 members were interested in the better maintenance and welfare of the revision petitioner society, the 1st respondent herein as plaintiff ought to have obtained leave of the trial Court under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and served notice on such members, but no leave was obtained as contemplated under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. THE Registrar or Societies is the competent authority to enquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society. THE Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the reliefs sought for in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein. THE petition filed by the members of the revision petitioner society has been adjourned to 7.3.2001 and was not considered by the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. It is on these grounds, the revision petitioner society has sought for dismissal of the suit filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.

(3.) IT is relevant to point out that the revision petitioner as 1st defendant represented by the Secretary and the members of the Executive Committee of the revision petitioner as well as the District Registrar(Society, Madurai) who was arrayed as llth defendant and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Madurai, who was arrayed as 12th defendant, have not yet filed their written statement in the suit raising the plea of maintainability either on the ground of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. or on the ground of section 36 of the Act. But on the other hand, the revision petitioner, the 1st defendant filed a civil revision petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the suit referred to above filed by the 1st respondent herein on the ground of maintainability and the said petition, after considering the submission made on both sides, was dismissed, but with direction trial court to take up the preliminary issue of maintainability raised by the revision petitioner herein and to pass orders. The revision petitioner, the 1st defendant in that suit has not filed his written statement, but on the other hand, filed this petition in I.A.No.87 of 2001 in O.S.No.37 of 2001 raising the question of maintainability as preliminary issue without producing any documentary evidence before the trial Court and got the petition filed by the revision petitioner dismissed on merits by the trial Court. If the revision petitioner herein as well as 1 1th and 12th defendants in the suit have filed their written statement, it would throw light on the controversial points raised on either side. IT is unfortunate that the revision petitioner herein had rushed to the High Court as well as to the trial Court to get an order with regard to the maintainability of the suit without even filing the written statement raising the plea of maintainability and also without giving opportunity for the defendants 11 and 12 to file their written statement with regard to the points at issue.