H R SHENOY Vs. M MURALI KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the revision petition as filed under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable.

(2.) The petitioners who are some of the defendants in O.S. No. 3473 of 1989 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed the revision petition in the first instance under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Registry of the High Court took an objection that the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Hence they converted it to one under Section 115 C.P.C.

(3.) The brief facts with regard to the initiation of the proceedings and the orders passed thereon which are relevant factors for determining the maintainability of the revision petition are as follows ; The plaintiffs who are the members of the Syndicate Bank Officers' Association, filed a representative suit, with the prior permission of the Court, for a declaration that some of the actions specified in the plaint are illegal and ultra vires and for a perpetual injunction and also for accounting. To safeguard the funds from devastation or flittering away the funds of the Association, the plaintiffs filed five applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. When the petitions came up for hearing on 25-8-1989, only respondents 2, 3 and 5 took notice. The case was posted to 28-8-1989 for filing counter and it was directed on 25-8-1989 that in the meanwhile the funds will not be expended. Only some of the respondents appeared on 28-8-1989 and subsequently, the matter was heard and temporary injunction was passed against the respondents by separate orders dated 2-9-1989 and interim injunction and notice were ordered to other respondents who were not on record.