F.J. JEROME Vs. P. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in I.A.No.55/2013 in O.S.No.980/2011 pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town are the petitioners in the present civil revision petition. The respondents 1 to 9 in the civil revision petition are the plaintiffs in the above said suit. The respondents 10 to 32 in the Civil Revision Petition are the defendants in the above said suit.

(2.) The above said suit came to be filed by the respondents 1 to 9 herein, as a representative suit, for themselves and for the benefit of the members of Victoria Edward Hall, which is shown as the first defendant in the original suit and figures as the 10th respondent in the civil revision petition, for a declaration that the election for the period 2011-2014 conducted to the 10th respondent society/first defendant society was illegal, null and void, nonest and invalid and for an injunction restraining the respondents 11 to 24/defendants 2 to 15 from functioning and discharging their duties as office bearers and Managing Committee members to manage the affairs of the 10th respondent society/first defendant society and also for appointment of a Receiver or any other authority to manage the affairs of the 10th respondent society/first defendant society. They have also prayed for a direction to hold fresh election/re-election to be conducted by the Receiver or such other authority to be appointed by the court on the basis of a valid voters' list after setting aside the election held on 31.7.2011.

(3.) As the suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 9 herein/plaintiffs 1 to 9 for themselves and also on behalf of and for the benefit of the members of the 10th respondent society/1st defendant society, which according to them, has got approximately about 1200 members, excluding the associate members having no voting right. In this regard, a petition in I.A.No.895/2011 under Order 1 Rule 8(1)(a) and (b) of CPC read with Sections 94(e) and 151 of CPC came to be filed by the respondents 1 to 9 herein/plaintiffs, praying for an order permitting them to sue for themselves and on behalf of and for the benefit of all members of the 10th respondent society/first defendant society, namely Victoria Edward Hall, Madurai stating that it was not practicable to give personal notice to all of them of the institution of the suit, a plea had been made for the service of notice to the members by way of publication. Accordingly, permission was granted and with the permission of the court, notice to the members of the society was given by effecting publication.