ACARYA DHRUVANAND AVADHUTA Vs. ANANDA MARGA PRACARAK SAMGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated September 14, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court, Purulia in Title Suit No.305 of 2003. The short fact of the case is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the Title Suit No.305 of 2003 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court, Purulia against the defendants praying for a decree of declaration that all the 15 members of governing body including the plaintiff nos.1 to 4 as listed in Annexure 2 are the elected office bearers and members of the governing body for the year 2003-04 of the plaintiff no.1/association, further declaration that the defendant nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally have no right and competence to withhold charge of the office of the plaintiff no.1 and they are the present existing office bearers of the governing body of the plaintiff no.1/assocaition, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from functioning as President and the Joint Secretary of the plaintiff no.1 and other reliefs.

(2.) In that suit, the defendants/petitioners appeared and they filed a written statement. The suit was at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed another application seeking impleadment of the plaintiffs/opposite party nos.5 to 7 as co-plaintiffs in the suit on the plea that the opposite party nos.5 to 7 have been elected in the office bearers of the society for the period of 2008-09 and for the subsequent period until replaced by election. The plaintiffs gathered such information when they received about such fact on January 5, 2009 from the copy of the Misc. Appeal no.3 of 2009 filed in the Court of the learned District Judge, Purulia by Acharya Vishvadevananda Avadhuta. That application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this application.

(3.) Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury points out the main prayer of the plaint case as appearing at page no.36 and thus, he submits that main relief of the plaintiffs is that the 15 members as listed in Annexure 2 to the plaint are the office bearers and members of the governing body for the year 2003-04 and for other consequential reliefs on the basis of the election for the year 2003-04. Therefore, the entire claim of the plaintiffs in the suit are related to the period of 2003-04 only. By the proposed amendment of addition of parties, the plaintiffs have wanted to incorporate the names of the other persons as plaintiff nos.5 to 7 and defendant in the suit on the ground that they are the office bearers for the year 2008-09. The election of the plaintiff no.1 is to be held every year and so there is a change of the office bearers of the plaintiff no.1 for each year. The plaintiffs did not take note of the change of the subsequent years after the period 2003-04 but they have wanted to include the office bearers who were elected for the year 2008-09 with note that they should remain in such capacity until new election. He also contends that such measures were taken when the suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing and if the amendment as sought for as subsequent events to the filing of the suit is allowed to continue, there will not be any end of the suit and it will be a perpetual one and so without intervening the all other intervening office bearers after the period of 2003-04 and before 2008-09, such amendment cannot be allowed. The learned Trial Judge has failed to take notice of such fact. He also contends that the defendants were permitted to submit the return as per order of Justice Soumitra Pal in W.P. No.26072 (w) of 2007. Under the circumstances, that this submission of return is essential to run the society. This has been done in compliance with the rules of the society. So, for that reason the proposed impleadment should not have been granted by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Roychowdhury also points out the effect of the proposed amendment appearing at page no.64 in Annexure P-5 to the application and thus he submits that such type of prayer of the amendment of the plaint should not be granted.