P S JAGANATH BABU Vs. K SANTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant as against the order passed in I.A.No.9879 of 2008 in O.S.No.3679 of 2008 dated 04.07.2008 by the XVI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in appointing the Advocate Commissioner to take over the day to day administration of the sangam and to conduct the 85th Annual General body of the sangam regarding elections by giving proper notice to all the members of the sangam and to submit his report.

(2.) THE trial Court has passed order in I.A.No.9879 of 2008 by appointing an Advocate Commissioner Mr.Karthik Ganesh and has fixed his remuneration of Rs.3,000/-. Further, the trial Court in para 5 of its order passed in I.A.No.9879 of 2008 has inter alia observed that 'the activities of two sangams are accepted on either side and therefore, to find a solution to the real controversy and Advocate Commissioner can be appointed who will scrutinize the list of members and after selecting persons for the conduct of elections he shall submit a report etc.'

(3.) THE revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed a detailed counter inter alia stating that the members of the Executive committee who suspended the respondent/ defendant/petitioner as per bye laws of the sangam are not arrayed as parties to the suit particularly under Order 29 Rule 1 CPC and that the respondent/plaintiff has no prima facie case and that the Secretary's unilateral communication to the applicants have not been approved by the Executive committee as member etc. and that in the meeting held on 22.5.2008 the majority of Executive committee members felt General Secretary's reply to show cause notice has not been in good taste etc. and the act of filing returns in Form VI to Registrar which is subsequently rejected by Registration is without the knowledge and approval of the committee and that the respondent/plaintiff despite his legal suspension is continuing to show defiance to the defendant and members and has been signing cheques alone with Treasurer etc. and that meeting called for on 24.05.2008 is illegal and the scrutinizing committee is still in process of scrutinizing the voluminous applications and that the Secretary refused to follow the direction given by Executive committee on 15.04.2008 and 20.04.2008 attended by the plaintiff and that the respondent/plaintiff accepted the fact of the formation of screening committee and having taken part in deliberation is estopped from communicating with the new applicants without consent and approval of president and Executive committee and screening committee and that the respondent/ plaintiff/petitioner has not been reinstated and that the respondent/plaintiff as a person seeking revenge is not entitled to any equitable or statutory relief at the hands of Court and there is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.