VIDYADHAR JAGANNATH KAKDE Vs. AMOLAKCHAND DAULATRAM GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application arises out of the order dated 22-4-1994 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, rejecting the petitioners application at Exhibit 327 for joining them as party plaintiffs to the suit filed by the respondents in representative capacity for removal of the trustees of the public trust known as Rashtriya Shikshan Mandal registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1860 and also under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, The respondent Nos. I and 2 on prior permission of the Charity Commissioner filed Trust Suit No. 2 of the 1978 for removal of defendants Nos. 3 to 8 as trustees of the trust and appointment of new trustees on the grounds of serious breaches, mismanagement and misappropriation of the trust funds. An inquiry was also conducted by the Inspector appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the affairs of the trust and it appears that after the report submitted by the Inspector on 30-7-1977, an application was moved before the trial Court for compromise. The suit was compromised on 10-11-1989. That order of the compromise in the trust suit was challenged by the petitioner No. 1 by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1990. There was, however, delay in filing the appeal. In the meanwhile the respondent No. 6 an interested person in the trust filed the review application in the Trust Suit No. 2 of 1978 and by the order dated 21-11-1989 the Court restored the suit to file by setting aside the decree on compromise. In that view of the matter, on the application of the respondent No. I, RCA No. 371 of 1990 was held to be infructuous and dismissed with an observation that the petitioners, who are interested persons, could move the trial Court for adding them as party plaintiffs in the suit: Accordingly the petitioners herein filed their application Exh. 327 in the suit inter alia seeking a relief to join them as, party plaintiffs in the suit. The learned trial Judge by his impugned order rejected the application observing that it is open to the petitioners to watch the proceedings in the event they apprehend that the plaintiffs who are on record of the suit are not conducting the suit properly. It is against that order that this revision is filed.

(2.) MR. Suresh Kulkarni, invites my attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (R. Venugopala Naidu and others v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charitie and others) A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 444, in support of his contention that the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit as plaintiffs. The extent and scope of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well stated by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra. There is no quarrel with the fact that the petitioners are interested persons. There is also no quarrel that the plaintiffs who instituted the suit in their representative capacity are also interested persons. The learned trial Judge has observed that unless it is proved that the plaintiffs on record are acting prejudicial to the interests of the Trust right of the present petitioners to add them as plaintiff is premature. I think that it is a correct approach to the facts of the present case. Nowhere under section 92 or Order I, Rule 8 of the Code it is contemplated to add as many persons as possible as plaintiffs in are presentative suit. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of Order I provides that where any person suing or defending any such suit does not proceed with due diligence for the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in its place any other person having the same interest in the suit. Therefore, unless the Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs in the present suit do not proceed with due diligence in the suit, it will not be possible to add other persons having same interest as party plaintiffs in the suit In the circumstances, the application was rightly rejected by the learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) IN the result. Rule is discharged. The revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The learned, trial Judge shall, however, dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule discharged.