IN RE: K.R. REDDY ALIAS RAMASWAMI REDDIAR, GENDIKOTTAI REDDIGAL SANGAM OF TIRUPARANKUNDRAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND TREASURER, NAMELY, VALARAMASWAMI REDDIAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed on an application in O.S. 355 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirumangalam, permitting the President and Treasurer of the respondent (plaintiff) Sangam to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of Gendikottai Reddigal Sangam of Tirupparankundram. Originally,Vela Ramaswami Reddiar and Subbaraman, President and Treasurer, respectively of the Sangam, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,842,98 from the petitioner herein, on the ground that whatever amount was collected from the members of the Sangam was in the hands of the petitioner, that he did not deposit the same in the Grand Central Pandian Bank, Madurai, as per the directions of the treasurer, that the petitioner was liable to pay the said sum to respondent -Sangam and that, since the petitioner failed and neglected to pay the said sum, the suit was filed. The suit was resisted by the petitioner that he did not owe any amount in any manner to the respondent -Sangam and as such he was not liable to pay any amount to the Sangam. He also filed an additional written statement contending that the suit itself was not maintainable as the same was not filed in a representative capacity and also as the Sangam was an unregistered one. The respondent -Sangam had therefore to file an application under O. 6, R. 17, C.P. Code, to amend the cause title by adding the words, 'as representatives of the plaint Sangam'. This application, out of which the present revision petition arises, was stoutly opposed by the petitioner herein who contended that it was a belated one, that it was not known whether there was community of interest and that the respondent could not be allowed to sue in a representative capacity.

(2.) The learned District Munsif allowed the application and permitted the respondent to amend the plaint and to sue in a representative capacity. It is against this order, the defendant has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) In this petition, two points arise for determination. The first is whether the learned District Munsif was right in permitting the respondent to amend the cause title of the plaint and to sue in a representative capacity. In regard to this point, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the procedure laid down in O. 1, R. 8, C.P.C. was not applicable to the present case, as the suit was for recovery of money. I am afraid that this contention may not prevail, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kodia Gounder v/s. Velandi Gounder : A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 281=68 L.W. 107 (F.B.) where the learned Judges had to consider a similar question under O. 1, R. 8, C.P.C., Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench, observed at page 287: